In re M.B., R.B.-1, and R.B.-2

Summary

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of petitioner mother F.H.’s parental rights to three children. The court held that she was not entitled to an improvement period because she failed to acknowledge or address her substance abuse, did not comply with services, and declined visitation. The court also upheld the denial of post-termination visitation because the record did not establish that continued contact was in the children’s best interests.

Holdings

1. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner an improvement period because she failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that she was likely to fully participate, refused long-term substance-abuse treatment, denied or minimized her substance abuse despite positive drug screens, and had not remedied the conditions leading to adjudication.
2. The circuit court did not err in terminating petitioner’s parental rights because the evidence supported findings that there was no reasonable likelihood she could substantially correct the conditions of abuse and neglect in the near future and that termination was required for the children’s welfare.
3. The circuit court did not err in denying post-termination visitation because petitioner did not establish that continued visitation was in the children’s best interests and the evidence showed that she had rejected visitation during the proceedings and that continued contact could interfere with the children’s permanent placements.
4. The Court applied de novo review to legal conclusions and clear-error review to factual findings in the abuse and neglect proceeding.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court erred by denying petitioner a post-adjudicatory improvement period.
2. Whether the circuit court erred by terminating petitioner’s parental rights based on the lack of a reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future and the children’s best interests.
3. Whether the circuit court erred by denying petitioner post-termination visitation.

Disposition

affirmed