In re E.T., 21-0013

DHHR filed a child abuse and neglect petition (Apr 2020) after E.T.’s father admitted sexually abusing sibling K.T.; petitioner M.T. knew of the admission.
After the father’s arrest, M.T. posted his bond and continued to allow him in the home with E.T.; she later removed him only after the petition was filed and after proceedings began.
At multiple adjudicatory hearings M.T. initially denied neglect and refused to acknowledge that her conduct exposed E.T. to harm; the circuit court found her testimony not credible.
M.T. later filed for divorce, withdrew as the father’s bond surety, and offered to participate in services, but sought a post-adjudicatory improvement period which the court denied.
The circuit court concluded there was no reasonable likelihood M.T. could correct the conditions due to her prior refusal to acknowledge the problem and terminated her custodial and parental rights (Dec 9, 2020).
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed, holding the record supported denial of an improvement period and termination of rights.

Issue	Petitioner (M.T.) Argument	DHHR / Guardian Argument	Held
Denial of post-adjudicatory improvement period	M.T. would fully participate; statutory "compelling circumstances" standard requires allowance unless justified; she had since ended the relationship and taken steps (divorce, withdrew bond) showing likelihood of improvement	M.T. failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence she was likely to fully participate; she had not sought services and largely refused to acknowledge the neglect until late in proceedings	Denial affirmed: petitioner failed to meet statutory burden; court reasonably found her testimony not credible and services would be futile
Termination of parental and custodial rights	Recent steps (divorce, withdrew bond, willingness to engage in services) show ability and likelihood to correct conditions; termination was unnecessary	Petitioner never acknowledged the core problem for most of the case, showing inadequate capacity to correct abuse/neglect; termination necessary for child’s welfare	Termination affirmed: no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected in near future; termination was in child’s best interest

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (standard of review for circuit-court factual findings).
In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (trial-on-the-facts review principles).
State v. Scritchfield, 167 W. Va. 683, 280 S.E.2d 315 (W. Va. 1981) (historical discussion of "compelling circumstances" for improvement periods).
In re Charity H., 215 W. Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (W. Va. 2004) (explaining the eradication of the "compelling circumstances" standard after statutory amendment).
In re M.M., 236 W. Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (W. Va. 2015) (circuit court discretion to grant improvement periods).
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W. Va. 381, 497 S.E.2d 531 (W. Va. 1997) (deference to trial court credibility findings).
In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (W. Va. 2013) (failure to acknowledge the problem makes improvement futile).
In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (W. Va. 1980) (termination may be employed without intermediate remedies when no reasonable likelihood of correction).
In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (W. Va. 2011) (discussing termination standard under West Virginia Code).