In Re: S.W., J.W. and L.W., 17-0225

DHHR filed abuse & neglect petition (Jan 2016) alleging domestic violence, parental substance abuse, unsafe housing, lack of medical/educational care, and exposure of children to sex offenders; amended to allege two children were sexually abused by petitioner’s brother and a neighbor and that parents knew and did nothing.
Petitioner stipulated at adjudication (Apr 2016) that her substance abuse impaired parenting and she failed to provide adequate supervision, housing, or clothing; adjudicated an abusing parent.
Circuit court ordered random drug screens; supervised visitation contingent on negative screens. Petitioner later requested a post-adjudicatory improvement period.
Evidence at dispositional hearings: petitioner tested positive for methamphetamines, admitted ongoing drug use and domestic violence with the father, had not participated in further drug screening or remedial services, and had not visited the children for over a year.
Children’s psychological evaluations recommended only therapeutic contact with parents and did not recommend reunification; one child was in residential treatment with a permanency plan of adoption.
Circuit court denied petitioner’s post-adjudicatory improvement period, found no reasonable likelihood petitioner could correct conditions, terminated parental rights (Feb 9, 2017); Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	Respondent / Court’s Argument	Held
Whether petitioner was entitled to a post-adjudicatory improvement period	Petitioner argued the conditions were correctable and she should be allowed an improvement period to remedy substance abuse and domestic violence issues	Circuit court/State argued petitioner had not shown likelihood of full participation: positive drug test, continued drug use and DV, refusal to engage with DHHR, no remedial efforts	Denied: court found petitioner failed to show by clear and convincing evidence she was likely to fully participate; denial affirmed
Whether termination of parental rights was proper under WV law	Petitioner argued termination was disproportionate and court over-relied on psychologists’ recommendations against reunification	Court relied on broad substantial evidence beyond evaluations: ongoing drug use, failure to comply with screens/services, continued domestic violence, no visitation for >1 year, children’s need for permanency	Affirmed: court found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be substantially corrected and termination was necessary for children’s welfare

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for bench findings in abuse and neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (reiterating standard of review)
In re: M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (2015) (discretion to grant or deny improvement periods)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (court discretion to grant improvement periods)
In re: Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (2004) (parent’s entitlement to improvement period conditioned on showing likelihood of full participation)