In Re: S.W., J.W. and L.W., 17-0180

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petitions in Jan 2016 alleging domestic violence in the children’s presence, drug abuse, unsafe housing, inadequate medical/educational care, and exposure to sex offenders; amended in Mar 2016 to allege sexual abuse of two children by known offenders.
Father (E.W.) stipulated at adjudication (Apr 2016) that he exposed children to domestic violence, failed to supervise/educate, and failed to protect them from sexual abuse; court ordered drug screens and supervised visitation contingent on negative screens.
Father sought a post-adjudicatory improvement period; dispositional hearings occurred Dec 2016 and Jan 2017 after continuances.
At disposition the evaluating psychologist failed to appear; a DHHR worker testified to the psychologist’s written recommendations, which were admitted; parties received the written recommendations and could have called the psychologist at a later hearing.
Evidence against father included a positive methamphetamine test, missed drug screens, admissions of drug use and continued domestic violence with the children’s mother, allowing a registered sex offender access to the children, and over a year without visits due to noncompliance.
The circuit court denied the father’s motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period, found no reasonable likelihood he could correct the conditions, and terminated his parental rights (Feb 9, 2017). The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of psychologist recommendations and denial of right to cross-examine	Father: DHHR worker’s testimony relaying the psychologist’s recommendations improperly admitted; deprived father of right to cross-examine the expert under Rules 701/706	DHHR/Court: Written recommendations were admitted and parties received them; father had opportunity to call and cross-examine the psychologist at the subsequent hearing but did not	Court: No error — recommendations properly admitted, parties received them, and father had the opportunity to call/cross-examine but failed to do so
Denial of post-adjudicatory improvement period / termination of parental rights	Father: Court erred in denying an improvement period and terminating rights (argued procedural/evidentiary error contributed)	DHHR/Court: Father failed to show likelihood of full participation (positive drug test, missed screens, ongoing domestic violence, lack of visitation); substantial evidence supported denial and termination	Court: Denial and termination affirmed — father did not demonstrate likely participation and conditions were unlikely to be corrected; termination necessary for children’s welfare

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (standard of review for circuit court factual findings in abuse-and-neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (applying standard of review for bench findings)
T & R Trucking, Inc. v. Maynard, 221 W.Va. 447, 655 S.E.2d 193 (W. Va. 2007) (trial court discretion in evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
In re: M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (W. Va. 2015) (circuit court discretion to grant or deny improvement periods)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (W. Va. 1996) (discretionary nature of improvement periods within statutory requirements)
In re: Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (W. Va. 2004) (parent’s entitlement to improvement period conditioned on demonstrating likely full participation)