In Re: Z.B. and Z.Y., 17-0203

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition (July 2016) alleging the mother had substance-abuse issues, including drug use during pregnancy resulting in newborn requiring a morphine taper; father was not alleged to be abusing.
Mother stipulated at adjudication (Aug. 2016) to substance abuse affecting her parenting; the court granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period (Oct. 2016).
DHHR and guardian ad litem moved to revoke the mother’s improvement period (Nov. 2016), alleging failure to drug‑screen, enroll in treatment, contact DHHR, visit children, and that the mother was incarcerated beginning Oct. 12, 2016; the court revoked the improvement period.
At dispositional hearing (Jan. 2017) DHHR and mother’s counsel requested disposition under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(b)(5); the court placed the children permanently with the non‑abusing father and granted mother visitation at the father’s discretion.
The circuit court found permanent placement with the father was not adverse to the children’s best interests and left open the possibility of future modification by the mother; the case was dismissed from the docket (Feb. 13, 2017).
Guardian ad litem appealed, arguing the court should have terminated the mother’s parental rights to secure the “highest degree of possible permanency.” The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court erred by not terminating the mother’s parental rights	GAL: Mother failed to remedy substance abuse; termination required to achieve the highest permanency	DHHR & Mother: Placement with non‑abusing father is permanent and in children’s best interests; less restrictive disposition appropriate	Affirmed — court did not err in declining to terminate; placement with father is permanent and in children’s best interests
Whether permitting the mother to seek future modification undermines permanency	GAL: Ability to reopen threatens permanency and delays finality	DHHR: Rule and statute define permanent placement to include custody with non‑abusing parent; modification requires clear‑and‑convincing showing of material change and best interests	Affirmed — placement with father qualifies as permanent placement; mother cannot modify without meeting statutory standard

In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 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 (W. Va. 2011) (reiterating appellate review standard for abuse/neglect findings)
In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (W. Va. 1980) (termination may be employed where no reasonable likelihood conditions can be substantially corrected)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (W. Va. 2011) (discussing termination standard and less restrictive alternatives)
In re Frances J.A.S., 213 W.Va. 636, 584 S.E.2d 492 (W. Va. 2003) (dispositional phase focuses on child’s best interests, not solely on parent’s completion of tasks)
Michael K.T. v. Tina L.T., 182 W.Va. 399, 387 S.E.2d 866 (W. Va. 1989) (principle that child’s best interests govern decisions affecting children)
Kristopher O. v. Mazzone, 227 W.Va. 184, 706 S.E.2d 381 (W. Va. 2011) (confirming best‑interests standard at dispositional stage)