In Re: T.Y., A.Y.-1, A.Y.-2, J.P., K.P., and A.P., 17-0441

DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition (Jan 2016) after petitioner M.P. allegedly abandoned three children with a relative, failed to provide essentials, and had prior multi‑state CPS involvement including past removals and services dating to 2004.
Children had been in and out of foster care, missed school, and reported fear of petitioner; CPS found the children appeared afraid, had missed meals, and had slept in petitioner’s car.
At preliminary hearing petitioner gave inconsistent testimony, admitted lying under oath, and denied allegations including threats and substance abuse; the court found probable cause for removal.
A psychological evaluation concluded petitioner had lifelong maladaptive personality traits, a poor to non‑existent prognosis for improved parenting, and was unlikely to benefit from further services.
At disposition petitioner requested an improvement period; the court heard evidence she missed drug screens, parenting and life‑skills classes, cancelled supervised visits, had unstable housing and income, and had a long history of failing to implement services.
The circuit court denied an additional improvement period and terminated petitioner’s parental rights; this appeal challenges denial of an improvement period and termination without one.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court erred by denying M.P. an improvement period	M.P. argued she should have been granted an improvement period to attempt reunification	DHHR argued M.P. failed to file a written motion and failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence likelihood of full participation or implementation of services	Denial affirmed: no written motion, ample record showing failure to comply with services and lack of motivation to implement parenting changes
Whether termination of parental rights was improper without first granting an improvement period	M.P. argued termination should not proceed absent an improvement period	DHHR argued statute allows termination where there is no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected and parent failed to follow case plans; psychologist opined poor prognosis	Termination affirmed: court found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be substantially corrected and termination necessary for children’s welfare

In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (standard of review and findings of fact not to be set aside unless clearly erroneous)
In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (bench trial findings reviewed under clearly erroneous standard)
In re M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (circuit court discretion to grant or deny improvement periods and requirement to implement parenting skills)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (discretionary nature of improvement periods within statutory requirements)
In re Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (parent’s entitlement to improvement period conditioned on demonstrating likelihood of full participation)
W.Va. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Peggy F., 184 W.Va. 60, 399 S.E.2d 460 (compliance with some plan aspects may still reflect failure to improve overall parenting attitude)
In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (termination may be used without less restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (reiterating standard for termination when no reasonable likelihood of correction exists)