In Re: M.H. and M.N., 16-0606

In Sept. 2015, law enforcement raided Mother M.C.’s home and found crack cocaine, heroin, oxycodone, two firearms, and drug paraphernalia within reach of three-year-old M.H.; M.N. (age 7) was at school during the raid.
M.H. was found in poor hygiene: soiled diaper, filth, and numerous infected bed‑bug bites; Mother admitted to using Percocet and marijuana and was arrested on drug charges.
DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petitions; after evidentiary adjudicatory hearings the circuit court adjudicated Mother an abusing parent as to M.H.
At the May 16, 2016 dispositional hearing the circuit court terminated Mother’s parental rights to both M.H. and M.N. and denied post‑termination visitation; Mother appealed only the M.N. termination and the visitation denial.
Mother is incarcerated (projected release Dec. 11, 2022); she did not file a written motion seeking post‑termination visitation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination of Mother’s parental rights to M.N. required an individual adjudication that M.N. was abused or neglected	Mother: court erred because M.N. was not separately adjudicated abused/neglected	DHHR/Ct: no authority required separate finding; child in home during abuse is an abused child and Mother failed to develop the argument on appeal	Affirmed — termination of M.N. upheld; Mother’s appellate brief failed to cite controlling authority and assignment was inadequately developed
Whether court erred by denying post‑termination visitation	Mother: she has a bond with children and they desire contact	DHHR/Ct: record lacks evidence of a bond or children’s wishes; Mother hadn’t seen children since Dec. 2015 and failed to file written motion	Affirmed — denial of post‑termination visitation was within the court’s discretion

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W.Va. 1996) (standard for reviewing fact findings in abuse/neglect bench trials)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W.Va. 2011) (articulating appellate standard of review for abuse/neglect proceedings)
In re Christina L., 194 W.Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (W.Va. 1995) (child residing in home during abuse may be an abused child at risk even if not a direct victim)
In re Daniel D., 211 W.Va. 79, 562 S.E.2d 147 (W.Va. 2002) (court may consider post‑termination visitation where in child’s best interest)
Gebr. Eickhoff Maschinenfabrik Und Eisengieberei mbH v. Starcher, 174 W.Va. 618, 328 S.E.2d 492 (W.Va. 1985) (the term “may” is permissive and denotes discretion)
In re Marley M., 231 W.Va. 534, 745 S.E.2d 572 (W.Va. 2013) (post‑termination visitation must be requested by written motion)