In re H.B., J.B., P.B., D.B., and B.B.-1, 21-0058

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petitions (Dec. 2018) alleging chronic educational, medical, hygienic neglect and unsafe living conditions (rat/roach infestations, no running water); prior referrals and past proceedings involving the family were noted.
CPS and school evidence showed severe truancy, poor hygiene, insect infestations in children’s belongings, and unsanitary home conditions; some children suffered malnutrition, developmental delay, severe dental decay, lice and prolonged scabies.
Petitioners (parents) were appointed guardians ad litem due to alleged intellectual disabilities; they were offered services repeatedly but failed to participate or comply; parenting services were closed for noncompliance.
Parents entered written stipulations admitting inadequate housing, medical neglect, and educational neglect; mother sought improvement periods which the circuit court denied for lack of demonstrated likelihood to participate.
In January 2021, after recesses and consultation with counsel/guardians, both parents voluntarily signed relinquishments; the circuit court conducted an on-the-record colloquy, accepted the relinquishments, and terminated parental rights.
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the termination, rejecting arguments that the improvement-period denial and acceptance of relinquishments were erroneous, and reminded the circuit court of permanency duties.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of mother’s post-adjudicatory improvement period	Mother: she showed willingness (obtained housing) and was not offered adequate services; therefore she was entitled to an improvement period	DHHR/Court: mother was repeatedly offered services, failed to attend or comply, had poor visitation, and psychological testing showed lack of motivation to change	Court: denial was proper—mother failed to show by clear and convincing evidence she was likely to fully participate
Validity of voluntary relinquishments and Rule 35 compliance	Parents: court did not adequately ensure they understood consequences given intellectual disabilities; relinquishments were not in children’s best interests	DHHR/Court: parents had time to consult counsel/guardians, affirmed understanding on the record, and did not claim duress or fraud	Court: relinquishments were knowing, intelligent, voluntary; Rule 35 requirements satisfied; termination affirmed
Children’s permanency and best interests after termination	Parents: termination not in children’s best interests (argued generally)	DHHR/Guardian: permanency through adoption/guardianship was appropriate; court must pursue permanency reviews	Court: parents offered no support for assertion; affirmed termination and reminded circuit court of Rule 39/43 duties to secure permanency promptly

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for circuit-court factual findings in abuse-and-neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (appellate review standard and permanency timing requirements)
In re Kaitlyn P., 225 W. Va. 123, 690 S.E.2d 131 (2010) (purpose of improvement periods as opportunity to correct neglect)
In re Tonjia M., 212 W. Va. 443, 573 S.E.2d 354 (2002) (circuit court discretion to deny improvement period when improvement is unlikely)
In re Cesar L., 221 W. Va. 249, 654 S.E.2d 373 (2007) (voluntary relinquishment valid when in writing and free from duress/fraud)
In re Katie S., 198 W. Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (parental visitation while children are in custody bears on potential to improve)
State v. Michael M., 202 W. Va. 350, 504 S.E.2d 177 (1998) (priority to secure a suitable adoptive home when determining permanent out-of-home placement)