In Re: X.D., 17-0376

DHHR filed an abuse-and-neglect petition (Sept. 2016) alleging mother continued a relationship with the child’s father, a registered sex offender whose rights to other children had been terminated; child was removed and mother received supervised visitation.
Mother stipulated at adjudication that she exposed the child to a threat of harm by maintaining the relationship and was granted a postadjudicatory improvement period with requirements (random drug screens, parenting classes, no contact with father).
During status hearings providers and the DHHR reported mother failed to complete parenting classes, missed/insufficiently participated in visits, and continued contact with the father despite the court’s no-contact order.
The circuit court terminated the postadjudicatory improvement period for insufficient participation and set the case for disposition; at disposition mother requested a postdispositional improvement period but refused to testify.
The circuit court found mother did not appreciate the danger the father posed, was unlikely to correct conditions in the near future, and terminated her parental rights (March 16, 2017).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination of postadjudicatory improvement period was error	Mother: She substantially complied; continuation was in child’s best interest	DHHR/Ct: She failed to comply with required services and remained in contact with the father	Court: No error — court properly terminated improvement period for failure to participate
Whether denial of a postdispositional improvement period was error	Mother: She deserved another improvement period and could comply	DHHR/Ct: Mother failed to show likelihood of full participation; she had not remedied prior failures	Court: No error — mother failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence she would fully participate
Whether termination of parental rights was appropriate given available alternatives	Mother: Less drastic dispositions were available	DHHR/Ct: No reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected; termination necessary for child’s welfare	Court: No error — statutory grounds satisfied; termination proper
Whether mother’s failure to acknowledge the problem affects availability of services	Mother: (implied) disputed extent of failure to comply	DHHR/Ct: Failure to acknowledge perpetrator/problem makes improvement futile	Court: Agreed — lack of acknowledgment undermines effectiveness of an improvement period

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for circuit-court fact 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 Lacey P., 189 W.Va. 580, 433 S.E.2d 518 (1993) (court discretion to terminate improvement periods)
In re Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (2004) (burden to obtain improvement period: clear and convincing evidence of likely participation)
In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (2013) (failure to acknowledge problem makes improvement period futile)
In re M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (2015) (discretion in granting improvement periods)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (discretionary nature of improvement periods)