1

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

In re A.S.-B., W.J., and P.B.

No. 21-0600 (Wood County 19-JA-144, 19-JA-176, and 19-JA-191)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Mother C.M., by counsel Eric K. Powell, appeals the Circuit Court of Wood

County’s June 16, 2021, order terminating her parental rights to A.S.-B., W.J., and P.B.

1 The West 

Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (“DHHR”), by counsel Patrick Morrisey 

and Katherine A. Campbell, filed a response in support of the circuit court’s order. The guardian 

ad litem, Matthew E. DeVore, filed a response on behalf of the children also in support of the 

circuit court’s order. Intervenor foster parents C.S. and H.S., by counsel Jeffrey B. Reed, also filed 

a response in support of the circuit court’s order. On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court 

erred in terminating her parental rights rather than imposing a less-restrictive dispositional 

alternative.

This Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal 

arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided 

by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record 

presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, 

a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

In July of 2019, the DHHR filed a child abuse and neglect petition alleging father Z.B.

physically abused then seven-year-old D.R. and that this physical abuse also threatened the 

wellbeing of A.S.-B.2 The DHHR alleged that D.R. was taken to an emergency room where he 

presented with injuries consistent with child abuse. According to the petition, the DHHR 

conducted a forensic interview with D.R. through a local Child Advocacy Center. During the 

1

Consistent with our long-standing practice in cases with sensitive facts, we use initials 

where necessary to protect the identities of those involved in this case. See In re K.H., 235 W. Va. 

254, 773 S.E.2d 20 (2015); Melinda H. v. William R. II, 230 W. Va. 731, 742 S.E.2d 419 (2013); 

State v. Brandon B., 218 W. Va. 324, 624 S.E.2d 761 (2005); State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W. 

Va. 641, 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990).

2

Petitioner is not the mother of D.R. and the child is not at issue in this appeal.

FILED

April 14, 2022

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

interview, D.R. stated that the father spanked him with a board on the buttocks and smacked him 

in the face after accusing him of taking money from his wallet.

The DHHR filed an amended petition in September of 2019 adding allegations that 

petitioner exposed the children, A.S.-B. and W.J., to unsafe and unsanitary living conditions and 

drug abuse and allowed them to have contact with Z.B. in violation of her safety plan. The DHHR 

further alleged that petitioner failed to provide the children with adequate housing. The next 

month, the DHHR filed a second amended petition after the birth of P.B. The DHHR alleged that 

petitioner tested positive for marijuana upon the birth of P.B.

The circuit court held an adjudicatory hearing in October of 2019 during which petitioner 

stipulated to the allegations in the petition, including that she was not a protective parent by 

allowing Z.B. to be around the children in defiance of a court order prohibiting such contact. The 

court adjudicated petitioner as an abusing and neglecting parent and granted her a six-month postadjudicatory improvement period. 

The circuit court held a series of review hearings over the subsequent months. At a review 

hearing in May of 2020, the DHHR demonstrated that although petitioner was participating in 

services, she had established a pattern of dishonesty and failed to acknowledge many of her issues 

with service providers and the DHHR. The DHHR further presented petitioner’s parental fitness 

evaluation report wherein the evaluator detailed that no services would be effective in correcting 

petitioner’s issues of abuse because she refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing. As a result of 

petitioner’s lack of progress, the DHHR requested that the circuit court schedule the proceedings 

for a dispositional hearing.

The circuit court held a hearing in July of 2020 during which it granted petitioner a sixmonth post-dispositional improvement period. During the hearing, petitioner testified that 

although she did not acknowledge her abuse and neglect during her parental fitness evaluation, she 

subsequently learned that her actions were abusive through her continued participation in services. 

Despite her limited progress during her post-adjudicatory improvement period, the court found 

that petitioner had experienced a “substantial change in circumstance through classes, screens, and 

[her] testimony.” 

After some periods of compliance during her post-dispositional improvement period, a 

Court Appointed Special Advocate (“CASA”) filed a report indicating that “[d]espite compliance 

with some of the terms and conditions of their respective improvement periods, . . . CASA has 

concerns that both [r]espondent [p]arents are essentially going through the motions with their 

respective improvement periods.” The DHHR also filed a report in December of 2020 after visiting 

the parents’ home. The DHHR expressed concerns about the cleanliness and safety of the home, 

including the use of multiple portable electric heaters, and presented photographs of the conditions 

inside. 

The circuit court addressed the reports at a hearing in January of 2021 during which the 

court noted its concerns with the parents’ “honesty and decision making.” At the hearing, a CPS 

worker testified as to the parents’ improvement periods. The worker explained that the parents lied 

about the food they were feeding the children, lied about selling a kitchen table inside the home 
3

that reflected their inability to properly manage money, and lied about purchasing and keeping 

multiple animals, including two dogs, two birds, a cat, and a ferret inside the residence. The worker 

indicated that the animals further contributed to the home being cluttered, odoriferous, and 

unsanitary for the children. Despite this concern, the court extended petitioner’s post-dispositional 

improvement period for an additional three months.

The circuit court held another review hearing in March of 2021 during which the DHHR 

presented evidence concerning a domestic violence incident that occurred in the prior month. A 

CPS worker testified that Z.B. tracked petitioner’s location to the home of a suspected paramour, 

banged on the door, and yelled until petitioner exited the paramour’s residence. The worker further 

testified that Z.B. removed petitioner’s license plate from her vehicle, tried to force her off of the 

highway while driving, and followed her to a gas station and insisted that she return to their home 

with him. Petitioner contacted the CPS worker during the incident and remained on the phone with 

her throughout, while expressing fear of the father. 

The CPS worker further testified that petitioner admitted that she had done Z.B.’s parenting 

skills homework assignments for him, and the worker witnessed issues with petitioner’s parenting 

of the children during her visits. The worker testified that during one home visit, the father became 

extremely angry and both parents continued to be deceitful and dishonest when addressing 

concerns raised by service providers or the DHHR. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit 

court acknowledged the issues of compliance with the terms of the parents’ improvement period 

and noted that the improvement periods were set to expire in forty-five days. As a result, the court 

scheduled the proceedings for a dispositional hearing in April of 2021 and ordered that services 

continue until the hearing.

The circuit court held a series of final dispositional hearings in May and June of 2021. 

During those hearings, a CPS worker testified that despite the parents’ participation in services, 

they failed to demonstrate changes in their parenting and overall ability to provide a safe home for 

the children. The worker documented repeated incidents of the parents lying about everything from 

their employment to the children’s meals. Service providers, including the parenting provider, 

visitation supervisor, and counselors, further testified about different instances of the parents lying 

during the proceedings. The CASA worker also produced a report explaining the deceit he had 

experienced in working with the parents. The worker provided text messages which demonstrated 

that petitioner was deceitful about allowing family members to join in a visit with the children. A

marriage counselor also testified that she provided counseling to the couple at their request. The 

counselor explained that petitioner and the father failed to fully disclose the domestic violence 

issues in their relationship and, as a result was unable to fully address those issuesin her counseling 

with the couple.

Next, petitioner testified that she was employed but under questioning acknowledged that 

she had lied to a CPS worker about her prior unemployment. Under further questioning, petitioner

acknowledged that she had been warned against bringing more animals into the home while 

attempting to financially provide for the children. However, petitioner confirmed that she had 

brought more animals into the home since prior hearings. Petitioner further testified about the 

incident of domestic violence in February of 2021, where Z.B. tracked her to another residence 

and demanded she return home with him. Petitioner explained that she was worried that the father
4

would try to physically harm her during the incident. Petitioner further explained that the father 

followed her in his vehicle to a gas station. Once at the gas station, petitioner explained that the 

father removed the keys from her vehicle ignition and drove away before coming back. Petitioner

explained that once the father returned, he demanded that she follow him home. Under questioning, 

petitioner also noted that the father removed the license plate from the vehicle and then threatened 

to report her vehicle to law enforcement officials due to the missing license plate. 

After hearing the evidence, the circuit court found that the parents failed to successfully 

complete their improvement periods. The court found that while the parents may have been 

“attending and giving the appearance of being compliant with services,” they “failed to internalize 

what those services intended to achieve.” The court further found that the measure of a successful 

improvement period is not merely attending appointments and classes but “whether the parent has 

changed his/her behavior to make them an appropriate parent to have the children safely returned 

to the parent.” The court further found that the proceedings began as a result of domestic violence 

against the children and progressed to domestic violence between the parents, which it found as 

evidence of the father’s progression of violence during the course of the case. Finally, the court 

found that petitioner and the father “have no credibility whatsoever” and failed to be honest with 

each other, service providers, and the court. The court found that the parents’ “failure to be honest 

with their service providers made those services futile.” Accordingly, the circuit court terminated 

petitioner’s parental rights upon finding that there was no reasonable likelihood that she could 

substantially correct the conditions of abuse or neglect in the foreseeable future and that 

termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of the children. Petitioner appeals the 

June 16, 2021, dispositional order.

3

 

The Court has previously established the following standard of review in cases such as this:

“Although conclusions of law reached by a circuit court are subject to de 

novo review, when an action, such as an abuse and neglect case, is tried upon the 

facts without a jury, the circuit court shall make a determination based upon the 

evidence and shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether such 

child is abused or neglected. These findings shall not be set aside by a reviewing 

court unless clearly erroneous. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there 

is evidence to support the finding, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left 

with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. However, 

a reviewing court may not overturn a finding simply because it would have decided 

the case differently, and it must affirm a finding if the circuit court’s account of the 

evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.” Syl. Pt. 1, In 

Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996). 

Syl. Pt. 1, In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011). 

On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in terminating her parental rights 

rather than granting her a less-restrictive alternative. Petitioner argues that she acknowledged her

3

A.S.-B.’s, W.J.’s, and P.B.’s fathers’ parental rights were terminated below. The 

permanency plan for the children is adoption in their respective foster homes.
5

issues at various points in the proceedings, was granted a post-adjudicatory and post-dispositional 

improvement period and made substantial improvements. According to petitioner, she 

substantially complied with all services, including parenting and adult life skills classes, drug 

screening, and regular attendance at visitations and hearings. Petitioner also contends that she 

incorporated lessons learned in parenting classes into her visits “and was capable of handling the 

children’s behaviors.” Petitioner notes that the circuit court did not mention petitioner’s visits with 

the children in its dispositional order and, therefore, did not consider her visitation as a factor in 

reaching disposition. Petitioner also asserts that she moved out of her prior residence and updated 

her new home so that it was suitable and clean for the children. As such, petitioner argues that the 

circuit court erred in terminating her parental rights. We disagree. 

This Court has held that

[a]t the conclusion of the improvement period, the court shall review the 

performance of the parents in attempting to attain the goals of the improvement 

period and shall, in the court’s discretion, determine whether the conditions of the 

improvement period have been satisfied and whether sufficient improvement has 

been made in the context of all the circumstances of the case to justify the return of 

the child.

Syl. Pt. 6, In re Carlita B., 185 W. Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991). Further,

[i]n making the final disposition in a child abuse and neglect proceeding, 

the level of a parent’s compliance with the terms and conditions of an improvement 

period is just one factor to be considered. The controlling standard that governs any 

dispositional decision remains the best interests of the child.

Syl. Pt. 4, In re B.H., 233 W. Va. 57, 754 S.E.2d 743 (2014); see also In re Frances J.A.S., 213 

W. Va. 636, 646, 584 S.E.2d 492, 502 (2003) (“The question at the dispositional phase of a child 

abuse and neglect proceeding is not simply whether the parent has successfully completed his or 

her assigned tasks during the improvement period. Rather, the pivotal question is what disposition 

is consistent with the best interests of the child.”). Lastly, we note that West Virginia Code § 49-

4-604(c)(6) provides that circuit courts are to terminate parental rights upon finding that there is 

“no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected in 

the near future” and that termination is necessary for the child’s welfare. West Virginia Code § 

49-4-604(d) provides that a circuit court may find that there is no reasonable likelihood that the 

conditions of abuse and neglect can be substantially corrected when the abusing parent has 

“demonstrated an inadequate capacity to solve the problems of abuse or neglect on their own or 

with help.”

In this case, we find that the circuit court did not err in determining that petitioner failed to 

successfully complete her improvement period. Although petitioner made some initial progress by 

participating in adult life skills and parenting classes, attending visitations, and participating in 

drug screens, CPS workers and service providers testified that petitioner failed to internalize the 

services provided to her. Additionally, the circuit court found that petitioner was deceitful and 
6

dishonest when addressing concerns raised by service providers or the DHHR, rendering services 

futile.

Further, petitioner’s assertions that her home was suitable and that she financially provided 

for the children’s care and wellbeing is contradicted by evidence presented during the proceedings. 

At a hearing in January of 2021, a CPS worker explained that the parents lied about the food they 

were feeding the children; misled the DHHR about selling a kitchen table inside the home that 

reflected their inability to properly manage money; and lied about purchasing and keeping multiple 

animals, including two dogs, two birds, a cat, and a ferret inside the residence. The worker 

indicated that the animals further contributed to the home being cluttered, odoriferous, and 

unsanitary for the children. Thus, while petitioner completed adult life skills and parenting classes, 

she struggled to properly manage resources, choosing to spend household income on numerous 

pets at the expense of the children’s wellbeing—even selling the kitchen table. 

Petitioner also downplays an incident of domestic violence in February of 2021 involving 

Z.B., who she continued to allow to parent the children. It was the father’s physical abuse of then 

seven-year-old D.R. in May of 2019 which led to the initial petition. Nearly two years later, in 

February of 2021, the father engaged in domestic violence against petitioner by removing the 

license plate to her vehicle, removing the keys from her ignition, attempting to run her vehicle off 

of the road, threatening to report her vehicle to law enforcement, and compelling her to return 

home with him. During the dispositional hearing, petitioner testified that she was frightened that 

the father would attempt to physically harm her as well. However, the parents continued to deny 

any issues of domestic violence in their relationship. While petitioner points to her compliance 

with services and even participation in marriage counseling, the counselor testified that petitioner 

and the father failed to fully disclose the domestic violence issues in their relationship. As a result, 

she was unable to fully address those issue in her counseling with the couple. The father’s inability 

to manage his anger and propensity for violence was not limited to that incident alone. In March 

of 2021, a CPS worker testified that the father became repeatedly and vocally irate with her during 

a home inspection, and that the parents continued to lie and be deceitful in their actions. This 

dishonesty was also documented and reported by service providers, a CASA, and the circuit court. 

Furthermore, West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(9) provides that 

no combination of any improvement periods or extensions thereto may cause a 

child to be in foster care more than fifteen months of the most recent twenty-two 

months, unless the court finds compelling circumstances by clear and convincing 

evidence that it is in the child’s best interests to extend the time limits contained in 

this paragraph.

In June of 2021, when the circuit court issued its final decision, A.S.-B. and W.J. had already been 

in foster care since September of 2019. P.B. has never resided with petitioner and has been in 

foster care since her birth in October of 2019. The circuit court considered this statutory 

requirement and did not find compelling circumstances existed to extend the time limits for 

improvement periods. Accordingly, we find no error in the circuit court’s termination of 

petitioner’s parental rights given her failure to remedy the conditions of abuse and neglect.
7

In sum, while petitioner made some changes in order to comply with the requirements of 

her improvement period, she did not modify her behavior or make sufficient improvement to 

justify the return of the children to the home. “We have recognized that it is possible for an 

individual to show compliance with specific aspects of the case plan while failing to improve . . . 

[the] overall attitude and approach to parenting.” In re B.H., 233 W. Va. at 65, 754 S.E.2d at 751 

(additional quotations and citations omitted). Such is the case here. While petitioner completed 

some aspects of her improvement period, such as completing adult life skills and parenting classes, 

complying with drug screens, and visiting with the children, “courts are not required to exhaust 

every speculative possibility of parental improvement before terminating parental rights where it 

appears that the welfare of the child will be seriously threatened.” Syl. Pt. 1, in part, In re R.J.M., 

164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980). Despite petitioner’s participation in an improvement 

period and her completion of certain requirements, we find that sufficient evidence existed to 

support the circuit court’s finding that there was no reasonable likelihood that petitioner could 

correct the conditions of abuse and neglect in the near future and that termination was in the 

children’s best interests. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we find no error in the circuit 

court’s termination of petitioner’s parental rights to the children.

For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its June 

16, 2021, order is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: April 14, 2022

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice John A. Hutchison

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice Tim Armstead

Justice William R. Wooton

Justice Alan D. Moats sitting by temporary assignment