In Re: D.N.-1 and D.N.-2, 16-1055

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition after seven-month-old D.N.-1 was brought to hospital with a crushed femur and spiral ankle fracture; medical opinion doubted petitioner’s explanation.
Petitioner had an open prior DHHR case and moved into grandmother’s home; she waived the preliminary hearing.
Circuit court adjudicated petitioner for neglect based on failure to supervise and delayed medical care; petitioner moved for a post-adjudicatory improvement period.
Service providers testified petitioner was largely uncooperative, missed many parenting classes, moved frequently (sometimes with persons having open CPS cases), and refused/limited visitation; providers reported safety concerns and the children’s behavioral regressions after visits.
At disposition the court terminated petitioner’s parental rights; permanency plan is adoption (foster family or relatives). Petitioner appealed, arguing the court failed to grant an improvement period, erred by imposing termination (not least-restrictive), and improperly denied post-termination visitation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by not ruling on motion for post-adjudicatory improvement period	C.N.: court should have granted an improvement period	DHHR: petitioner failed to show she was likely to fully participate	Court: No error — petitioner’s long-term refusal and minimal late compliance failed the statutory clear-and-convincing showing required for an improvement period
Whether termination was an improper, non-least-restrictive disposition	C.N.: termination is too drastic; less-restrictive alternatives available	DHHR: petitioner did not comply with services and conditions were not correctable	Court: No error — record showed no reasonable likelihood conditions could be substantially corrected, permitting termination without intermediate alternatives
Whether denial of post-termination visitation was improper	C.N.: strong emotional bond justified post-termination contact	DHHR/guardian: visitation caused behavioral regressions and was detrimental	Court: No error — evidence showed visitation worsened child behavior; continued contact would be detrimental
Whether court improperly considered foster placement quality in decision	C.N.: court improperly relied on foster family’s ability to provide better care	DHHR: children’s continuity and stability are relevant to welfare	Court: No error — consideration of children’s stability in current placement was permissible and supported termination decision

In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 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 (W. Va. 2011) (standard of review restated)
In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (W. Va. 1980) (termination may be used without less-restrictive alternatives if no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (W. Va. 2011) (affirming principles on termination when conditions uncorrectable)
In re Christina L., 194 W.Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (W. Va. 1995) (factors for considering post-termination visitation)
In re Daniel D., 211 W.Va. 79, 562 S.E.2d 147 (W. Va. 2002) (application of Christina L. factors)
Hammack v. Wise, 158 W.Va. 343, 211 S.E.2d 118 (W. Va. 1975) (best-interest principle in custody controversies)
In re Antonio R.A., 228 W.Va. 380, 719 S.E.2d 850 (W. Va. 2011) (discussion on best interest and termination considerations)