In re D.B., J.B., and P.B., 21-0812

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petitions (Aug 2020) after mother admitted heroin use and overdosing and children were found in unsanitary/inappropriate homes (roaches, bites, caretaker with substantiated drug history).
Mother stipulated to abuse/neglect (Oct 2020); court granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period (Dec 2020). Services and MAT were initially pursued.
By early 2021 providers had trouble contacting mother; by May 2021 she ceased consistent participation. Mother gave birth to P.B. in May 2021; newborn was NICU-admitted and mother tested positive for Suboxone.
Mother lacked stable housing and employment, at times lived in a motel with her mother (previously found an inappropriate caregiver), and visits were suspended after children returned with bug bites.
Providers reported poor prognosis: mother stopped engaging, refused some offered assistance (e.g., shelter placement), quit her job shortly before the dispositional hearing, and blamed providers rather than accepting responsibility.
Circuit court found no reasonable likelihood mother would correct conditions, terminated parental rights (Sept 13, 2021); mother appealed arguing she had remedied substance abuse and needed more time/an improvement period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination was erroneous because mother corrected substance abuse and needed additional time to remedy housing/employment	Mother: Substance-abuse issue was resolved (negative screens); she only needed more time to secure housing/employment and should be reunified	DHHR/Court: Mother ceased meaningful participation, failed to benefit from services, refused assistance, and posed ongoing risk; welfare requires termination	Court: Affirmed termination — mother failed to correct conditions and was unlikely to do so in near future; children’s welfare required termination
Whether mother was entitled to a post-dispositional improvement period without filing a written motion	Mother: Requested additional time / improvement period at disposition	DHHR/Court: West Virginia law requires a written motion to obtain a post-dispositional improvement period; no such motion was filed	Court: Mother not entitled to relief because she did not file the statutory written motion; procedural requirement bars grant of post‑dispositional period

In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (standards for review and parental-termination principles)
In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (clear-error standard for circuit-court factual findings)
In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (2013) (parental failure to acknowledge problems can render issues untreatable)
In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (courts need not pursue speculative parental improvement when child welfare is threatened)