In Re: M.H.-1, 17-0585

Background

DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition alleging aggravated circumstances based on M.H.-2’s prior involuntary terminations and that she failed to protect M.H.-1 by arranging that child’s placement with an abusive couple; genetic testing later identified B.S. as the father.
Petitioner (mother M.H.-2) previously had parental rights involuntarily terminated to two older children after admitting she observed severe physical abuse by her ex‑boyfriend.
At adjudication M.H.-2 stipulated to a history of prior involuntary terminations and that she failed to protect M.H.-1; she was adjudicated an abusing parent.
M.H.-2 moved for a post‑adjudicatory improvement period; DHHR moved to terminate parental rights.
At disposition the mother minimized and denied her prior admissions, blamed the court/system, and a psychological evaluation indicated a low prognosis for change; the court denied the improvement period and terminated her parental rights.
The guardian supports termination; the child was placed in foster care with a permanency plan of adoption.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court erred in denying a post‑adjudicatory improvement period	M.H.-2: she had shown willingness to participate (parenting and life‑skills classes) and thus met the clear‑and‑convincing threshold for an improvement period	DHHR/Court: mother minimized/denied the abuse, had low prognosis on psychological evaluation, so she was unlikely to fully participate or benefit	Denied — court did not err; mother failed to prove she was likely to fully participate or that an improvement period would be effective
Whether termination of parental rights was improper because less‑restrictive alternatives (e.g., guardianship) existed	M.H.-2: alternative dispositions, including guardianship under West Virginia Code §49‑4‑604(b)(5), were more appropriate than termination	DHHR/Court: statutory grounds for termination exist where there is no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected and prior failures to protect and lack of response to rehabilitative efforts support termination	Affirmed — court found no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction in near future and termination was necessary for the child’s welfare
Whether mother’s prior involuntary terminations and her statements required different relief	M.H.-2: contested/minimized prior history at disposition, arguing adjudication was improper	DHHR/Court: prior involuntary terminations and mother’s continued denial made remediation futile and risked child’s welfare	Court relied on prior history and mother’s denial; findings not clearly erroneous and supported termination

Key Cases Cited

In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for circuit court findings in abuse/neglect bench trials)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (review standard reiterated)
In re Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (2004) (parent must show by clear and convincing evidence likelihood of full participation to obtain improvement period)
In re M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (2015) (discretion of circuit court to grant or deny improvement periods)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (scope of court’s discretion to grant improvement periods)
In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (2013) (failure to acknowledge the problem makes improvement period futile)