In Re: M.B. and R.B., 17-0562

DHHR filed abuse and neglect petition (Dec 2015) alleging petitioner mother failed to obtain medical/dental care for M.B., had long history of substance abuse, unstable housing/supervision, and exposed children to domestic violence and an ex-gang-member boyfriend.
Petitioner previously had an abuse-and-neglect case with services and returned custody after one year; DHHR alleged recurrence and removal of children from a relative in violation of court order.
Petitioner stipulated to exposing children to domestic violence; circuit court adjudicated her an abusing parent and granted an improvement period with parenting, life-skills, psychological evaluation, and counseling plus supervised visitation.
During the improvement period petitioner missed 12 of 36 supervised visits, was arrested for shoplifting, continued relationship with an ex-Latin King gang member in violation of restrictions, and service providers testified she failed to implement parenting techniques and could not control the children.
At dispositional hearing the court found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected, terminated petitioner’s parental rights, and denied post-termination visitation; children placed in separate foster homes with adoption goals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (T.C.)	Defendant's Argument (DHHR/Circuit Court)	Held
Whether termination was erroneous because petitioner substantially complied with improvement period	Petitioner claimed substantial compliance with ordered services and improvement period requirements	DHHR/court argued petitioner failed to follow through: missed visits, criminal arrest, ongoing unsafe relationship, and did not implement parenting skills despite long-term services	Affirmed: termination proper—no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected and termination was necessary for children’s welfare
Whether denial of post-termination visitation was erroneous	Petitioner argued strong bond and benefit to children from continued contact	DHHR/court argued petitioner did not file a written motion and record showed visits disrupted children and posed safety risks (boyfriend presence)	Affirmed: denial proper—no evidence supporting benefit and visitation likely disruptive; petitioner failed to follow post-termination motion procedure

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) (reciting standard of review and deference to circuit court findings)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (termination may be used without less restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected)
In re Marley M., 231 W.Va. 534, 745 S.E.2d 572 (2013) (procedural requirement for requesting post-termination visitation by written motion and hearing)
In re Christina L., 194 W.Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (1995) (factors for considering post-termination visitation: bond, child’s wishes, best interest, and safety)
In re Daniel D., 211 W.Va. 79, 562 S.E.2d 147 (2002) (court may consider post-termination visitation where appropriate and sets standards for doing so)