In Re: B.S.-1, E.S., C.S., and S.W., 16-1087

DHHR filed abuse and neglect petitions (Feb 2015) alleging the father repeatedly physically abused the children, and that mother T.S. failed to protect them, posted the father’s bond, used buprenorphine while pregnant, and kept a deplorable home.
T.S. stipulated to neglect in March 2015, was adjudicated a neglecting (abusing) parent, and received post‑adjudicatory improvement periods and court‑ordered services (parenting, life skills, drug screens, counseling).
Evidence at dispositional hearings (July 2016) included children’s fear of the father, visitation supervisor concerns about the father’s conduct, reports of the parents being seen together, and service providers’ testimony that T.S. made no meaningful behavioral change.
T.S. had multiple positive drug screens (marijuana and illicit buprenorphine) and missed numerous court‑ordered drug tests; she completed services but did not implement taught skills.
The circuit court found no reasonable likelihood T.S. could substantially correct conditions of abuse/neglect, terminated her parental rights, and the children were placed with maternal grandparents; T.S. appealed arguing the court should have used a less‑restrictive dispositional alternative.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (T.S.)	Defendant's Argument (DHHR/Circuit Court)	Held
Whether termination of T.S.’s parental rights was improper because a less‑restrictive alternative should have been used	T.S. argued she participated in services, made significant progress, and had a strong bond with the children so court should not have terminated rights	DHHR/court pointed to positive drug tests, missed screens, lack of meaningful progress in services, ongoing relationship with the father, and children’s fear — evidence T.S. didn’t remedy conditions	Affirmed: termination was proper because there was no reasonable likelihood conditions could be substantially corrected and termination was necessary for children’s welfare
Whether the circuit court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous	T.S. claimed the record showed compliance and improvement	DHHR/court relied on testimonial and objective evidence showing noncompliance and continuing risk	Affirmed: findings were supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for circuit court findings in abuse/neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (appellate review standard reiterated)
In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (termination may be used without less‑restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood of correction)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (termination standards and application)
State v. Michael M., 202 W.Va. 350, 504 S.E.2d 177 (1998) (priority for adoptive placement where appropriate)
James M. v. Maynard, 185 W.Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (1991) (guardian ad litem’s continuing role until permanent placement)