1 

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

In re D.P., T.M., and N.P. 

No. 22-585 (Wood County 21-JA-60, 21-JA-61, and 22-JA-41) 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Mother B.P.1 appeals the Circuit Court of Wood County’s June 16, 2022, order 

terminating her parental rights to D.P., T.M., and N.P.2 Upon our review, we determine that oral 

argument is unnecessary and that a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is 

appropriate. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21. 

It appears that the proceedings below were initiated in March of 2021, when the DHHR 

filed an abuse and neglect petition alleging that petitioner’s substance abuse impacted her ability 

to properly parent the children and that domestic violence occurred in the home. However, 

petitioner did not include the initial petition in the appendix record before this Court, and she 

further failed to include a single citation to the appendix record in her brief. Further compounding 

these deficiencies, petitioner failed to include any adjudicatory order3 in the appendix record, 

although she asserts that she stipulated to substance abuse impacting her ability to properly parent, 

failure to provide adequate supervision and safe housing for the children, and failure to protect the 

children from the father’s4 domestic violence. Petitioner admits that she was adjudicated for 

neglecting D.P. and T.M.5 upon these stipulated grounds. It appears that the court then granted 

1Petitioner appears by counsel Wells H. Dillon. The West Virginia Department of Health 

and Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and 

Assistant Attorney General Lee Niezgoda. George M. Torres appears as the children’s guardian 

ad litem. 

2We use initials where necessary to protect the identities of those involved in this case. See 

W. Va. R. App. P. 40(e). 

3Petitioner included the transcripts of several adjudicatory hearings, but fails to cite to any 

portion of these transcripts to corroborate any of her claims. 

4For purposes of this memorandum decision, “the father” refers to the father of T.M. and 

N.P, as the father of D.P. is unknown and not addressed. 

5N.P. had not yet been born at this time. 

FILED 

April 25, 2023 

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 
2 

petitioner an improvement period. Thereafter, the DHHR filed an amended petition in February of 

2022 to include N.P. in the proceedings. Again, petitioner failed to include the subsequent 

adjudicatory order or cite to any adjudicatory transcripts, but she admits that she was adjudicated 

for neglecting N.P. at a hearing in April of 2022. 

The final dispositional hearing pertaining to the parents was held on April 29, 2022. Based 

on the evidence, the court found that the father “made the decision not to be engaged in this case” 

and “elected to choose controlled substances over his children.” The court then found that 

petitioner’s case was substantially similar to the father’s, in that “she had elected, until very 

recently, to continue her relationship with [the father] . . . to the detriment of the children.” 

Specifically, the court noted that petitioner did not separate from the father “until almost 

immediately before this hearing.” Further, the court found that throughout the case, petitioner 

“chose to remain with [the father] instead of visiting with the children during scheduled visitation.” 

Additionally, petitioner’s improvement period was terminated due to her lack of compliance and 

her continued relationship with the father, and petitioner admitted at the dispositional hearing that 

she had not been attending services. According to petitioner, her failure to attend was “because 

she has a lot going on,” but the court noted that she was unemployed and not caring for her children 

“so it is . . . unclear what it means” that she was too busy to comply. Petitioner was also unable to 

identify a single thing she learned during her services. Despite petitioner “screening clean,” the 

court concluded that petitioner was “not in a different position than when the [p]etition was filed 

when the family was struggling with housing, domestic violence, and substance abuse.” The court 

also concluded that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect 

could be substantially corrected in the near future and that termination of petitioner’s parental 

rights was necessary for the children’s welfare.6 It is from the dispositional order that petitioner 

appeals. 

On appeal from a final order in an abuse and neglect proceeding, this Court reviews the 

circuit court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Syl. Pt. 1, In re 

Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011). Before this Court, petitioner raises two 

assignments of error challenging the termination of her parental rights. However, as noted above, 

petitioner’s brief does not contain a single citation to the appendix record on appeal. Rule 10(c)(7) 

of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that “[t]he brief must contain an 

argument clearly exhibiting the points of fact . . . presented . . . [and] must contain appropriate and 

specific citations to the record on appeal, including citations that pinpoint when and how the issues 

in the assignments of error were presented to the lower tribunal.” (Emphasis added). The rule 

further cautions that “the Supreme Court may disregard errors that are not adequately supported 

by specific references to the record on appeal.” While we will not take the drastic step of entirely 

disregarding petitioner’s assignments of error because of the gross noncompliance with the 

applicable rule, we are nonetheless left with what amounts to a bald assertion that termination of 

petitioner’s parental rights was in error, an assertion with which we do not agree. 

6The court also terminated the parental rights of the children’s fathers. The permanency 

plan for the children is adoption in their current placements. 
3 

Indeed, the record overwhelmingly supports the circuit court’s termination of petitioner’s 

parental rights. As the court found, petitioner prioritized her relationship with the father, an 

individual with a substance abuse problem who was found to have disengaged from the 

proceedings entirely. Petitioner went so far as to permit her ongoing relationship with the father to 

prevent her from visiting the children. “We have previously pointed out that the level of interest 

demonstrated by a parent in visiting his or her children while they are out of the parent’s custody 

is a significant factor in determining the parent’s potential to improve sufficiently and achieve 

minimum standards to parent the child.” In re Katie S., 198 W. Va. 79, 90 n.14, 479 S.E.2d 589, 

600 n.14 (1996) (citations omitted). Given this, it is clear that the circuit court had sufficient 

evidence upon which to find that there was no reasonable likelihood that petitioner could 

substantially correct the conditions of abuse and neglect in the near future. This finding is further 

bolstered by evidence of petitioner’s noncompliance with services and her inability to identify 

anything she learned during the services she did attend. Because the court had ample evidence 

upon which to make the findings necessary for termination of petitioner’s parental rights, we find 

no error. See W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) (permitting circuit court to terminate parental rights 

upon finding that there is no reasonable likelihood that conditions of neglect can be substantially 

corrected in near future and when necessary for child’s welfare); see also Syl. Pt. 5, In re Kristin 

Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (permitting termination of parental rights “without the 

use of intervening less restrictive alternatives when it is found that there is no reasonable likelihood 

. . . that conditions of neglect . . . can be substantially corrected”). 

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

16, 2022, order is hereby affirmed. 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: April 25, 2023 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker 

Justice Tim Armstead 

Justice John A. Hutchison 

Justice William R. Wooton 

Justice C. Haley Bunn