In Re: T.T., M.O., and E.C., 17-0479

DHHR filed abuse/neglect petition (Dec 2016) after 8-year-old M.O. was found unsupervised outside in severe cold; CPS found 15-year-old E.C. home and the residence unsanitary.
Petitioner (mother J.C.) had a history of multiple referrals and two prior abuse/neglect proceedings (2013 and 2015) involving inadequate supervision, unsanitary home, and educational neglect.
Petitioner previously received extensive services and at least one improvement period (services from 2009 through 2016, described as “everything that the Department can provide”).
At the adjudicatory hearing (Jan 2017) petitioner’s motion for an improvement period was denied; she was adjudicated an abusing parent.
At disposition (Mar 2017) the circuit court terminated petitioner’s parental rights to T.T., M.O., and E.C., finding no improvement after years of services; petitioner appealed.
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, holding petitioner failed to show likelihood of full participation in another improvement period and that termination was warranted for the children’s welfare.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner was entitled to an improvement period	Petitioner argued prior completion of improvement periods warranted another chance	DHHR/court argued petitioner failed to implement past services and was unlikely to fully participate	Denied — court exercised discretion; petitioner failed to show likelihood of full participation
Whether termination of parental rights was appropriate	Petitioner argued termination was too drastic and less-restrictive alternatives existed	DHHR argued there was no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected given repeated failures despite extensive services	Affirmed — statutory criteria met (no reasonable likelihood of correction; necessary for children’s welfare)
Whether E.C.’s wishes (age 14+) required a different result	Petitioner contended court should have given controlling weight to E.C.’s desires	DHHR/guardian noted E.C.’s wishes were considered but do not mandate denying termination	Rejected — court considered E.C.’s wishes but was not required to follow them; termination still in E.C.’s best interest
Whether less-restrictive alternatives were required before termination	Petitioner argued alternatives existed to preserve parental rights	DHHR cited precedent permitting termination without intermediate steps when no reasonable likelihood of correction exists	Rejected — termination may be used without less-restrictive alternatives when statutory criteria are satisfied

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for circuit-court factual findings in abuse/neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (standards for review and permanency timing)
In re M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (2015) (discretion to grant improvement periods)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (court discretion over improvement periods)
In re Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (2004) (parent’s entitlement to improvement period conditioned on showing likelihood of full participation)
W. Va. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Peggy F., 184 W.Va. 60, 399 S.E.2d 460 (1990) (compliance with aspects of a plan does not necessarily show remedial improvement in parenting)
In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (termination permissible without intermediate less-restrictive alternatives when statutory criteria met)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (termination standards and statutory framework)
State v. Michael M., 202 W.Va. 350, 504 S.E.2d 177 (1998) (priority for adoptive placement in permanency determinations)
James M. v. Maynard, 185 W.Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (1991) (guardian ad litem role continues until child placed in permanent home)