1

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

In re M.B.-1, M.B.-2, M.B.-3, D.B., E.B., and I.B.

No. 23-149 (Wirt County CC-53-2020-JA-5, CC-53-2020-JA-6, CC-53-2020-JA-7, CC-53-2020-

JA-8, CC-53-2020-JA-9, and CC-53-2020-JA-10)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Father R.B.1appeals the Circuit Court of Wirt County’s February 13, 2023, order 

terminating his parental, custodial, and guardianship rights to M.B.-1, M.B.-2, M.B.-3, D.B., E.B., 

and I.B.,

2

arguing that the court erred in denying him a post-adjudicatory improvement period, 

terminating his parental rights when the conditions of abuse and neglect were correctable, and 

denying him post-termination visitation. 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.

In October 2020, the DHS filed a petition alleging that petitioner and the mother abused 

and neglected the children by subjecting them to uninhabitable conditions in the home and failing

to protect them from sexual abuse. According to the petition, the home was covered in trash, feces, 

roaches, mold, bedbugs, and fleas. Several children stated that they wanted to leave the home and 

would frequently sleep at a neighbor’s home “because of being bitten by bugs at their home.” 

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

Services appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Deputy Attorney General 

Steven R. Compton. Counsel Michael D. Farnsworth Jr. appears as the children’s guardian ad 

litem.

Additionally, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 5F-2-1a, the agency formerly known as 

the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources was terminated. It is now three 

separate agencies—the Department of Health Facilities, the Department of Health, and the 

Department of Human Services. See W. Va. Code § 5F-1-2. For purposes of abuse and neglect 

appeals, the agency is now the Department of Human Services (“DHS”).

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

W. Va. R. App. P. 40(e). Further, because several children share the same initials, we use numbers 

to differentiate them. 

FILED

April 15, 2024

C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

Further, another child in the home, K.B.,3reported to the DHS that the maternal grandfather

“sexually molested [her] for over a year.” Finally, the petition noted that the parents had a history 

with Child Protective Services in Arizona. The DHS later amended the petition to allege that 

petitioner physically abused the children through inappropriate discipline. 

After a series of continuances, the court held an adjudicatory hearing in October 2021, 

during which petitioner stipulated to exposing the children to inappropriate individuals, thereby 

seriously endangering their health and wellbeing, and using inappropriate discipline. Based on 

petitioner’s stipulation, the court found that he abused and neglected the children. 

The court then held a series of dispositional hearings, during which it heard from multiple 

witnesses. Relevant to the resolution of this appeal, the court heard testimony during a February 

2022 hearing from a psychologist who evaluated the parents. According to the psychologist, the 

parents admitted that “there have been multiple instances of sexual abuse by multiple 

perpetrators.” The psychologist testified that the prognosis for petitioner to attain minimally 

adequate parenting was “poor,” based, in part, on petitioner’s minimization of the children’s abuse. 

Further, when questioned about whether petitioner’s participation in services would impact her 

opinion on petitioner’s ability to parent, the psychologist stated that petitioner had “not 

demonstrated sustained behavioral change and sustained improvement in [his] supervisory tactics 

and [his] parenting style over long periods of time.” During that hearing, the court also heard 

testimony from two individuals who observed multiple visits between the parents and the children. 

According to one witness, the children eventually refused to attend visits with petitioner. The other 

witness testified that the children did not have a bond with petitioner, and she stated that several 

of the children “didn’t really seem like they cared to see [him] or not.” Finally, an individual who 

provided parenting services to petitioner testified that he denied issues with improperly supervising 

the children and claimed that “the only deficiency [he] thought they had was a dirty home.” Based 

on the evidence, the court found that there was no reasonable likelihood that petitioner could 

substantially correct the conditions of abuse and neglect in the near future, especially considering 

that he “did not take the sexual abuse seriously,” and that termination of his rights was necessary 

for the children’s welfare. Accordingly, the court terminated petitioner’s parental, custodial, and 

guardianship rights to the children.4It 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 first argues that the 

circuit court erred in denying him a post-adjudicatory improvement period. However, petitioner 

fails to include citation to the record demonstrating that he filed a written motion to this effect. As 

we have explained, “[a] circuit court may not grant a post-adjudicatory improvement period under 

W. Va. Code § 49-4-610(2) (eff. 2015) unless the respondent to the abuse and neglect petition files 

3K.B. reached the age of majority during the proceedings and was dismissed prior to 

disposition. As such, K.B. is not at issue in this appeal. 

4The mother’s parental rights were also terminated. The permanency plan for the children 

is adoption. 
3

a written motion requesting the improvement period.” Syl. Pt. 4, State ex rel. P.G.-1 v. Wilson, 

247 W. Va. 235, 878 S.E.2d 730 (2021). Because petitioner failed to comply with the applicable 

Rules of Appellate Procedure, he is entitled to no relief. See W. Va. R. App. P. 10(c)(7) (requiring 

that briefs “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” and permitting this Court to “disregard errors that are not adequately supported by 

specific references to the record on appeal”).

Next, petitioner argues that the court erred in terminating his parental rights because he 

could have corrected the conditions of abuse and neglect. In support, petitioner cites to various 

evidence to argue that he addressed the physical conditions in the home, moved to a larger 

residence, and participated in parenting and adult life skills. However, petitioner ignores the fact 

that the psychologist who evaluated him indicated that petitioner minimized the children’s abuse, 

including their repeated sexual abuse, and that another provider testified that the only deficiency 

petitioner acknowledged was the condition of the home. As we have explained, such failure to 

acknowledge renders conditions of abuse and neglect untreatable. See In re Timber M., 231 W. 

Va. 44, 55, 743 S.E.2d 352, 363 (2013) (“Failure to acknowledge the existence of the problem, 

i.e., the truth of the basic allegation pertaining to the alleged abuse and neglect . . . results in making 

the problem untreatable . . . .” (citation omitted)). Regardless of the evidence upon which petitioner 

relies, his refusal to fully acknowledge the abuse to which he previously stipulated and his 

minimization of permitting multiple individuals to perpetrate sexual abuse on the children 

constitute a situation in which there is no reasonable likelihood he could correct these conditions. 

Further, the court correctly found that the children’s welfare required termination, based on their 

need for, among other things, continuity of care and caretakers and the older children’s wishes. 

Accordingly, we find no error in the termination of petitioner’s parental, custodial, and 

guardianship rights to the children. See W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) (permitting circuit court to 

terminate parental, custodial, and guardianship rights upon finding no reasonable likelihood that 

conditions of abuse and neglect can be substantially corrected in the 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, custodial, and guardianship rights “without the use of 

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

that conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected” (citation omitted)). 

Finally, petitioner argues that the court erred in denying him post-termination visitation 

with the children. As we have explained, when considering whether post-termination visitation is 

appropriate, “the circuit court should consider whether a close emotional bond has been established 

between parent and child.” Syl. Pt. 11, in part, In re Daniel D., 211 W. Va. 79, 562 S.E.2d 147 

(2002) (citation omitted). While petitioner argues that he had a close bond with the children, 

visitation supervisors testified to the contrary, indicating that no bond existed and many of the 

children displayed disinterest in visiting petitioner. In denying post-termination visitation, the 

court clearly weighed the credibility of the witnesses, and we decline to disturb this determination. 

See Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W. Va. 381, 388, 497 S.E.2d 531, 538 (1997) (“A reviewing 

court cannot assess witness credibility through a record. The trier of fact is uniquely situated to 

make such determinations and this Court is not in a position to, and will not, second guess such 

determinations.”). Accordingly, we find that petitioner is entitled to no relief. 
4

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

February 13, 2023, order is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: April 15, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Tim Armstead

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice John A. Hutchison

Justice William R. Wooton

Justice C. Haley Bunn