In re E.S., E.C., K.S., and A.S., 21-0275

DHHR filed abuse and neglect petitions (2018–2019) after E.S. (then 11) reported being threatened with death by his stepfather and being punished by being forced to sit in a duct‑taped square for long periods; older children reported physical and emotional abuse and therapists diagnosed PTSD and other trauma‑related conditions.
Petitioner (E.C.-2) stipulated to the petition, was granted multiple improvement periods and participated in services, but earlier had a 2011 removal and later reunification history.
Evidence showed petitioner minimized and misrepresented the abuse (e.g., telling her therapist the duct‑tape punishment was a one‑hour time‑out) and denied or downplayed threats and physical abuse by J.S.; petitioner continued associations with J.S. despite children’s fear.
The circuit court found the older children suffered extensive psychological harm, lacked a parent‑child bond with petitioner, and that reunification could devastate their mental health; it concluded petitioner failed to acknowledge the abuse and thus could not correct conditions in the near future.
The court terminated petitioner’s parental and custodial rights as the least restrictive disposition; petitioner appealed only the denial of a less‑restrictive disposition and post‑termination visitation, arguing progress in services (hindered by COVID) supported reunification or continued contact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination was an improper, overly‑restrictive disposition	Petitioner: she made substantial progress in services and COVID impeded in‑person visitation; termination was too harsh	DHHR/guardian: petitioner failed to acknowledge abuse; children need permanency and stability; risk to children remains	Court affirmed termination: petitioner’s failure to acknowledge abuse made conditions untreatable and termination necessary for children’s welfare
Whether there was a reasonable likelihood conditions could be substantially corrected	Petitioner: participation in services shows capacity for correction	DHHR/guardian: despite services, petitioner minimized/denied abuse and maintained dangerous associations; inadequate capacity to solve underlying problems	Court held no reasonable likelihood of correction under § 49‑4‑604(d) because petitioner failed to acknowledge the abuse
Whether post‑termination visitation should have been granted	Petitioner: (briefly) E.S. wanted continued contact	DHHR/guardian: trauma to older children, lack of bond, and young age of others make contact harmful; any contact would depend on petitioner’s treatment progress	Court affirmed denial of post‑termination visitation as not in children’s best interest given trauma and lack of bond

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 and neglect adjudications)
In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (application of deferential review to circuit court findings)
In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (2013) (failure to acknowledge abuse renders improvement period futile)
In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (termination may be ordered without less‑restrictive alternatives when correction is unlikely)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (termination standards under West Virginia Code § 49‑4‑604)
In re Christina L., 194 W.Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (1995) (factors for considering post‑termination visitation)
In re Daniel D., 211 W. Va. 79, 562 S.E.2d 147 (2002) (further guidance on post‑termination contact analysis)