In Re: J.M.-1, A.M., J.M.-2, and J.M.-3, 16-0584

Mother (Y.W.) had four children (ages 2–5); DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition after mother admitted illegal drug use during multiple pregnancies and after birth of youngest child.
Circuit court adjudicated neglect and granted multiple improvement periods (post-adjudicatory, extended, and dispositional) totaling about 17 months with requirements: drug screens, psychological/substance evaluations, counseling, parenting and adult life-skills classes, supervised visitation.
Mother generally tested negative at times and made progress (housing efforts, increased visitation), but service providers testified she failed to complete parenting classes and did not implement parenting/ supervision/discipline skills.
Guardian moved to terminate when mother tested positive for buprenorphine; court modified services and visitation instead of terminating at that time.
At dispositional hearing, court found mother had not demonstrated ability to safely supervise or discipline the children; concluded there was no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected in the near future and terminated parental rights.
Children were placed in foster care with a permanency plan of adoption; mother appealed claiming (1) she completed improvement period and less-restrictive alternatives not considered and (2) DHHR failed to provide reasonable reunification efforts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination was erroneous because mother completed improvement period	Mother: she satisfied terms and remediated conditions	DHHR/guardian: mother did not complete parenting classes or implement skills despite services	Court: mother did not complete/implement required parenting skills; termination proper
Whether court failed to consider less-restrictive dispositional alternatives	Mother: court should have used alternatives to termination	DHHR/guardian: best interests require termination given uncorrected risks	Court: disposition governed by child’s best interests; termination warranted
Whether DHHR made reasonable efforts to reunify	Mother: DHHR failed to tailor services (e.g., for child behavioral needs)	DHHR: provided ~17 months of tailored services (classes, screens, supervised visitation)	Court: DHHR made reasonable reunification efforts; no evidence different services would have corrected problems
Whether statutory standard (no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected) was met	Mother: conditions were remediated/amenable to further correction	DHHR/guardian: repeated failure to respond to case plan shows no reasonable likelihood	Court: statutory standard met; termination necessary for children’s welfare

In re 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) (applicable standard of review reiterated)
In re B.H., 233 W.Va. 57, 754 S.E.2d 743 (2014) (parent’s compliance with improvement period is only one factor; best interests control)