In Re M.M., B.M., C.Z., and C.S, 236 W. Va. 108

Background

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petitions after Petitioners Leslie S. and Samuel S. physically and verbally abused their youngest child, C.S., in public; arrest followed and children were removed from the home.
The family had a prior history: in 2012 the parents received months of in‑home services for substantially similar parenting problems with little improvement; Leslie previously lost custody in Florida.
Petitioners participated in some services again (parent education, therapy, psychological evaluations) and sought pre‑ and post‑adjudicatory improvement periods; DHHR’s case plan recommended improvement periods but the guardian ad litem objected.
Two evidentiary dispositional hearings were held; service providers and therapists testified about minimal progress and guarded prognoses; older children expressed reluctance to return home.
The circuit court denied improvement periods and terminated parental and custodial rights (partial terminations for older children based on their wishes and full termination as to C.S.), concluding conditions were unlikely to be corrected and further services would jeopardize the children.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court erred by denying pre‑disposition improvement periods	Petitioners: they admitted problems, recently began services, therapists reported breakthroughs, and they would fully participate — therefore entitled to improvement periods under §49‑6‑12	DHHR/guardian: Petitioners previously showed minimal progress despite lengthy services (2012 and current); attitudes/parenting unchanged; improvement would risk children’s welfare	Held: Denial affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; record shows minimal progress and no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected
Whether the court violated Rule 34 / must have ordered DHHR to revise its case plan or hold another dispositional hearing because DHHR recommended improvement periods	Petitioners: Rule 34 and cases like Ashton M. and Edward B. require a new dispositional hearing when the court implicitly rejects a DHHR plan recommending improvement periods	DHHR/guardian: Those cases are distinguishable — here parties (including petitioners) knew the guardian might object; petitioners had full notice and two hearings to present evidence and no claim of unfair surprise	Held: No Rule 34 violation — court did not substantially disregard the process; prior cases distinguishable; termination was permissible where improvement unlikely
Whether termination was proper despite preference for least‑restrictive alternatives	Petitioners: termination was premature; less restrictive alternatives not exhausted	DHHR/guardian: courts need not exhaust speculative possibilities where child welfare is threatened and there is no reasonable likelihood of correction	Held: Termination affirmed — consistent with precedent allowing termination when no reasonable likelihood of correction exists and further services would endanger children

Key Cases Cited

Walker v. W. Va. Ethics Comm’n, 201 W. Va. 108, 492 S.E.2d 167 (1997) (standard of review for circuit court findings and dispositions)
In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (deferential review of factual findings in abuse/neglect cases)
In re Edward B., 210 W. Va. 621, 558 S.E.2d 620 (2001) (Rule 34 consequences when court substantially disregards the disposition process)
In re Ashton M., 228 W. Va. 584, 723 S.E.2d 409 (2012) (requiring new disposition hearing where court surprised parties by rejecting an agreed case plan)
In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (least restrictive alternative principle; courts need not exhaust speculative parental improvement)
In re Jeffrey R.L., 190 W. Va. 24, 435 S.E.2d 162 (1993) (termination may be employed when no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected)
In re Charity H., 215 W. Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (2004) (parent is not unconditionally entitled to an improvement period)