In Re JESSICA M. and Shawnta M., 744 S.E.2d 652

Lucinda M. is the mother of Jessica M. and Shawnta M.; DHHR filed abuse/neglect petitions based on domestic violence and the father's drug use in 2009.
The circuit court found the children abused/neglected; the father relinquished rights; Lucinda received a post-adjudicatory improvement period later extended, then rehabilitation, and visitation was increased.
DHHR sought termination of Lucinda's parental rights; guardian ad litem initially concurred but later supported continued investigation after concerns about the mother’s relationships.
During dispositional hearings, testimony included concerns from a CPS worker about sexualized behavior in the child and regarding the mother’s home safety, but service providers and the therapist testified to the mother’s progress and safety planning.
The court terminated rights in 2012; the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed, holding the record did not support termination and remanded for a reunification-focused plan with continued DHHR counseling services.
The decision emphasizes the mother’s substantial compliance with services and the need for a gradual reunification process rather than an immediate termination of parental rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.	Lucinda argues she complied with services and safety measures.	DHHR argues risk remains and reunification is unlikely.	No; reversal; termination lacked clear & convincing proof.
Whether the circuit court improperly relied on unsubstantiated or hearsay evidence about the child's sexualized behaviors.	Mother asserts the evidence was unsubstantiated and not corroborated.	DHHR contends the evidence supports termination.	Remand for development of a reunification plan; improper reliance on uncorroborated claims reversed.
Whether the standard of review and evidentiary deference to the circuit court were misapplied.	Circuit court’s factual findings were plausibly supported by the record.	Record supports termination under the statutory standard.	Apply de novo review with clear-error standard; benefits of reunification emphasized on remand.
Whether a gradual reunification plan with DHHR support is appropriate on remand.	Reunification planning should be pursued with appropriate services.	Still requires termination if conditions not substantially corrected.	Remand for reunification plan consistent with opinion; ensure continued counseling and oversight.

In re Willis, 157 W. Va. 225, 207 S.E.2d 129 (1973) (1973) (parental rights are fundamental but may be terminated with proper proof)
In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (1996) (compound standard of review for abuse/neglect cases; findings not clearly erroneous unless misapprehended)
Hammack v. Wise, 158 W. Va. 343, 211 S.E.2d 118 (1975) (1975) (parental rights subject to termination with substantial evidence of neglect)
State ex rel. Kiger v. Hancock, 153 W. Va. 404, 168 S.E.2d 798 (1969) (1969) (natural right to custody; due process protections)
Carlita B., 185 W. Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991) (1991) (parental rights; emphasize fundamental nature of custody)