In re A.B. and T.B., 21-0190

DHHR filed an abuse-and-neglect petition (Jan 2020) after prior referrals dating to May 2019: officers found petitioner unresponsive with drug paraphernalia and alcohol present; incidents of domestic violence were reported.
In-home safety services were offered in mid-2019; petitioner intermittently participated, tested positive for meth/alcohol, then ceased contact; additional violent incidents and arrests followed.
Circuit court adjudicated the children abused/neglected (Mar 2020). A post-dispositional improvement period was granted (July 2020) with requirements including evaluations, random drug screens, parenting classes, supervised contact, and treatment engagement.
Forensic evaluation (Sept 2020) and provider testimony characterized petitioner as having serious mental-health and substance-use disorders, poor prognosis for safe parenting, inconsistent service compliance, multiple positive drug screens through Jan 4, 2021, and missed or suspended visits.
Circuit court terminated petitioner’s parental rights (Feb 1, 2021) finding no reasonable likelihood the conditions could be corrected; children were reunified with the father. Petitioner appealed, arguing the court should have imposed a less-restrictive supervisory disposition instead of termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination was improper because a less-restrictive supervision order should have been used	L.L.: she made some improvements and supervision under WV Code §49-4-604(c)(4) would suffice	DHHR: petitioner failed case plan, continued substance use, inconsistent services, safety risk to children	Court affirmed termination; less-restrictive alternative not required because no reasonable likelihood of correction
Whether conditions could be substantially corrected under WV Code §49-4-604(d)(3)	L.L.: partial employment, some classes, claimed mental-health treatment	DHHR: repeated positive drug tests through Jan 2021, missed screens/visits, failure to internalize parenting, lack of documentation of treatment, denial of wrongdoing	Court found petitioner failed to follow the case plan and did not acknowledge problems; no reasonable likelihood of correction
Whether children’s reunification with the father precluded terminating mother’s rights	L.L.: children were placed with father so mother’s rights could be preserved under supervision	DHHR: one parent’s fitness does not immunize the other whose conduct endangered children	Court held reunification with father does not preclude terminating mother’s rights when mother’s conduct endangers children

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223 (1996) (standard for reviewing circuit-court factual findings in bench-tried abuse-and-neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89 (2011) (articulating review standard and trial-court factfinding deference)
In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44 (2013) (failure to acknowledge abuse/neglect can make the problem untreatable)
In re Emily, 208 W. Va. 325 (2000) (fitness of one parent does not automatically protect the other parent’s rights)
In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496 (1980) (termination may be employed without intermediate alternatives when no reasonable likelihood of correction)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558 (2011) (termination is the most drastic remedy under the disposition statutes)