In Re: R.B. and T.B., 16-0976

DHHR filed abuse and neglect petitions after allegations that R.B. sexually abused his sister A.B.-1 over several years; A.B.-1 said she feared telling grandmother (petitioner A.B.-2).
Initial investigation implicated petitioner for failing to protect/ supervise children, excessive corporal punishment, verbal abuse, medical and educational neglect, and prescription drug/alcohol use in the home.
Circuit court found reasonable cause and ordered evaluations; children’s psychological/educational testing showed severe developmental and educational deficits and behavioral issues.
Adjudication: circuit court found by clear and convincing evidence that children were abused/neglected (sexual abuse by R.B., petitioner’s failure to protect, excessive discipline, psychological abuse, medical/education neglect). Post-adjudicatory improvement period granted.
Guardian later reported additional disclosures by R.B. of sexual activity with siblings and others in petitioner’s home; petitioner continued to deny abuse. Circuit court terminated petitioner’s guardianship of R.B. and T.B. for lack of reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected and for children’s welfare.

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	DHHR/Guardian’s Argument	Held
Whether evidence was clear and convincing that petitioner abused/neglected children	Petitioner: insufficient clear and convincing evidence of abuse or neglect by petitioner	DHHR: children’s testimony, evaluations, and other evidence showed abuse/neglect (failure to protect, excessive discipline, neglect)	Held: enough evidence; findings not clearly erroneous — abuse and neglect upheld
Whether removal from petitioner’s home was justified	Petitioner: DHHR lacked valid reason to remove children	DHHR: imminent danger from sexual abuse by R.B. and risk to other children justified removal	Held: removal proper given risk and subsequent disclosures confirming abuse
Whether petitioner received full and fair opportunity to complete improvement period	Petitioner: termination premature; she lacked full opportunity to complete improvement period	DHHR: petitioner repeatedly denied abuse and failed to acknowledge or participate meaningfully, so improvement period ineffective	Held: petitioner failed to show likelihood of participating or correcting conditions; denial warranted termination
Whether termination of guardianship was proper under statute	Petitioner: termination inappropriate given alleged procedural/ evidentiary defects	DHHR/guardian: statutory criteria met — no reasonable likelihood of correction and termination in children’s best interest	Held: termination affirmed as necessary for children’s welfare and supported by statute

State v. Michael M., 202 W.Va. 350, 504 S.E.2d 177 (1998) (standard of review for bench-tried cases; circuit court findings not set aside unless clearly erroneous)
In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (clarifies clearly erroneous standard and appellate review of fact findings)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (applies standard of review and permanency timing requirements)
Brown v. Gobble, 196 W.Va. 559, 474 S.E.2d 489 (1996) (defines "clear and convincing" standard)
In re F.S. and Z.S., 233 W.Va. 538, 759 S.E.2d 769 (2014) (discusses abuse/neglect definitions and proof)
In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (2013) (failure to acknowledge abuse bars effective remediation)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (termination may be used without intermediate steps when no reasonable likelihood of correction)
James M. v. Maynard, 185 W.Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (1991) (guardian ad litem’s role continues until child placed in permanent home)