In Re B.H. and S.S, 754 S.E.2d 743

Petition to institute abuse and neglect proceedings filed Dec 5, 2011 by DHHR against mother regarding B.H. (b. 2004) and S.S. (b. 2001).
Father Randy H., Jr. was a named respondent but faced no abuse/neglect allegations; mother lived with John Bailey, a registered sex offender, exposing children to risk.
Emergency custody granted Dec 6, 2011; adjudication found neglect/abuse and the mother was placed on a six‑month improvement period with supervised visitation.
During the improvement period, the mother associated with other sex offenders (Bailey, Trembly) and faced concerns about protective decision‑making; unsupervised visitation was gradually permitted with guardrails.
Disposition orders (Mar 13, 2013 and a Corrected Disposition Order) ultimately awarded primary custody to father with liberal visitation for the mother, and dismissed the case; mother appeals challenging loss of custody and visitation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred in awarding primary custody to father despite substantial compliance by mother with the improvement period.	Perry (mother) contends substantial compliance supported custody return.	Respondent (father) argues best interests favored keeping children with father given safety concerns.	No error; best interests and overall conduct support father as primary custodian.
Whether the mother was given adequate opportunity for unsupervised visitation.	Mother asserts insufficient unsupervised visitation to demonstrate improvement.	Father/GAL argue visitation was appropriately conditioned and progressed with safety safeguards.	No reversible error; visitation timing and safeguards were appropriate.
Whether the disposition properly weighed improvement-period compliance as one factor among the child’s best interests.	Mother claims compliance should be dispositive of custody.	Court properly considered compliance as one factor among welfare considerations.	Yes; best interests remained controlling and compliance was not dispositive.
Whether the final disposition aligns with the best interests of the children given ongoing concerns about protection.	Mother contends lasting improvement and bond with mother justify different custody.	Court found ongoing safety concerns outweighed maternal progress.	Disposition affirmed; best interests served by primary custody with liberal visitation.

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (clear standard for reviewing abuse/neglect findings; plausibility of circuit court findings)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (review standard; deference to circuit court on disposition in abuse/neglect cases)
Carlita B., 185 W.Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991) (dispositional review; improvement period assessment; overall welfare standard)
In re Frances J.A.S., 213 W.Va. 636, 584 S.E.2d 492 (2003) (material welfare of child governs change in custody; improvement period considerations)
In re Rebecca K.C., 213 W.Va. 230, 579 S.E.2d 718 (2003) (substantial deference to circuit court on abuse/neglect disposition)
Cloud v. Cloud, 161 W.Va. 45, 239 S.E.2d 669 (1977) (change of custody requires showing change would promote welfare)
In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (2013) (polar star is the child’s best interests; not all improvements must be completed)