In re B.B. 224 W. Va. 647, 687 S.E.2d 746

PER CURIAM.

The respondent below and appellant herein, Rosemary C. (hereinafter “Rosemary”), appeals from an order entered July 3, 2008, by the Circuit Court of Mineral County. By that order, the circuit court denied Rosemary’s motion for a post-dispositional *649improvement period and terminated any parental rights to Tiffany B.1 (hereinafter “Tiffany”), Patricia B. (hereinafter “Patricia”), Joshua B. (hereinafter “Joshua”), Brandon B. (hereinafter “Brandon”), and Tessa F. (hereinafter “Tessa”), all children to whom Rosemary had no biological relation.2 The lower court’s order further denied post-termination visitation. On appeal to this Court, Rosemary argues that the circuit court erred in denying her post-dispositional improvement period and in terminating her parental rights. Rosemary also alleges some procedural improprieties that will be discussed in this opinion.3 Based on the parties’ arguments, the record designated for our consideration, and the pertinent authorities, we affirm the rulings made by the circuit court.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The petitioner, Rosemary, is currently in her mid-seventies and her son, Hiram, is in his mid-forties. Previously, the two lived together in Baltimore, Maryland. While living in Maryland, Rosemary and Hiram came to care for seven children, none of whom were related by blood or marriage to either Rosemary or Hiram.4 The biological parents 5 of the children were drug addicts and were acquaintances with one of Rosemary’s biological children. When the biological parents could not care for their children, Rosemary would take informal temporary custody. This process continued as each of the six sibling children were born and with the one child who was unrelated to the other six children. Rosemary was granted legal custody and guardianship of the children in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City Division for Juvenile Cases in April 1999; however, the biological parents’ rights were never terminated by the Maryland courts. The Maryland court terminated its jurisdiction over the matter in 2006.

In 2001, Rosemary and Hiram moved to West Virginia with these seven children. Soon thereafter, in March 2001, the children were brought to the attention of Child Pro*650tective Services (hereinafter “CPS”). Over the next several years, eleven different referrals were sought for various reasons. The referrals were investigated and some of the allegations contained therein were unsubstantiated. However, the referrals that were substantiated included instances of emotional abuse, physical abuse, improper threats of sending the children away for bad behavior, improper punishment by withholding food, illegal drug abuse in the home by adults, an unhealthy home with cockroaches falling from the ceiling, farm animals in the .home, flea infestation resulting in bites to the children, and failure on Rosemary’s part to complete the paperwork necessary for medical coverage for the children. Moreover, one of the children, Patricia, is ill with Hepatitis C.6 It was found that this child was forced to use a bucket outside of the home as separate toilet facilities. She was also forced to use different eating and drinking utensils from the rest of the family. The Department of Health and Human Resources (hereinafter “DHHR”) also noted its concerns about the children living in the same home as adults with extensive criminal backgrounds.7

Based upon these referrals and concerns, a general abuse and neglect petition was filed by the DHHR against Rosemary on June 12, 2007.8 In addition to Rosemary, other parties included in the underlying proceedings were the biological parents of the six sibling children, as well as the biological mother of the other child who was unrelated to the other six children.9 During the court proceedings in West Virginia, the biological parents’ rights to the six sibling children were terminated on December 12, 2007.10 The biological mother’s rights to Tessa are still pending in the circuit court. Of the seven children in Rosemary’s care, only three of them are at issue before this Court, all of whom are related to each other by blood but are not related to either Rosemary or Hiram by blood. The three children at issue in this appeal are Brandon, born 1993; Patricia, born 1995; and Joshua, born 1999.11

*651As early as September 2004, the family was referred for various services including Family Preservation, Juvenile Probation, and Youth Services. Parenting plans were designed and counseling was ordered. It was found that Rosemary and Hiram initially were not compliant in taking advantage of these ordered programs. It was also found that Rosemary and Hiram were not compliant with the court-ordered sibling visitation with siblings who had been removed from the home on juvenile petitions. During the lower court proceedings, it was found that Rosemary had a habit of filing juvenile petitions on the children as they got older. The lower court specifically found that

[a]s soon as a child gets old enough to report abuse, Rosemary would file a juvenile petition to get rid of and punish the child. That child is then shunned by Rosemary and Hiram.

Once a child is on the “shunned list”, there is an effort to exclude that child from her [or his] siblings.

As a result of the June 2007 abuse and neglect petition, the DHHR was granted legal custody of the children, but physical custody remained with Rosemary. A status hearing was held August 31, 2007, regarding a Motion for Contempt filed against Rosemary, wherein the lower court ruled that Rosemary was in contempt for intentionally interfering with sibling visitation that had been previously ordered to occur between the children remaining in her care and their sibling sister who had been removed from the home on a juvenile petition. Because Hiram’s actions also contributed to the lack of compliance with visitation, he was also subjected to the same continuing terms and conditions as Rosemary.

In September 2007, an amended abuse and neglect petition was filed by the DHHR. This petition alleged that Rosemary had allowed the children’s medical cards to lapse. The DHHR was granted physical custody of the children due to this failure by Rosemary, which resulted in the children being denied continued services from Family Preservation Services and Mountain State Psychological. The children were removed from the home and placed in various foster homes, with only Joshua and Patricia remaining together in the same placement.

On October 3, 2007, an adjudicatory hearing was held and the parties informed the lower court that they had reached an agreed adjudication for the trial court to approve. The stipulations of the parties included Rosemary’s concessions that the children had been exposed to inappropriate discipline in her home, resulting in both physical and emotional abuse. She further agreed that she had failed to participate with in-home services and social services recommended by the DHHR; and that the living conditions in her home had been less than adequate for the health, benefit, and welfare of the children. The lower court made a finding that the minor children were abused and/or neglected children and that continued physical custody by Rosemary was not in the children’s best interests. The lower court granted a six-month post-adjudicatory improvement period to Rosemary. In that time, Rosemary was directed to participate in counseling recommended by her psychological evaluation and to attend all counseling, medical, psychological, psychiatric, and parenting appointments or sessions determined necessary by the MultiDisciplinary Team (hereinafter “MDT”). The goals were to address the necessary parenting issues needed to protect the children, to improve the living conditions in the home, and to maintain current medical cards on the children.

The DHHR filed its Family Treatment Plan on February 14, 2008. The plan included the following eight items that must be remedied during the. improvement period:

1. Rosemary and Hiram have a history of not following through with services which resulted in the removal of the children from the family home.

2. Rosemary and Hiram file incorrigibility petitions on the children when they reach a certain age, indicating that the child is out of control. The child is then shunned by the other children because Rosemary and Hiram tell them not to speak to the child.

*6523. The family home is in disarray and through reports of service providers there are cockroaches everywhere crawling on the floors, walls and falling from the ceiling this creates an unhealthy environment for the children to live in due to cockroaches carrying disease.

4. The children report physical and emotional abuse as evidenced by reports of being pushed down the stairs, pushed against the walls, beat up by the other children while being held down by Hiram. Patricia has indicated that she had to toilet in a bucket in the home and was not allowed to use the family bathroom. The bucket was moved to a trailer outside and she was forced to use that. Patricia was also told regularly that she would die by the time she is sixteen. The other children report that Hiram would get angry with them and hang a sign on his door that he is not their father and they have to call him by his given name. Hiram and Rosemary do not permit the children to associate with black children because they do not like them. If caught the children are shunned.

5. The children have reported that [various other adults] would stay at the home and use drugs with Hiram. When this would happen the children were exposed to people being passed out and possibly overdosing on the drugs.[12]

6. Hiram and Rosemary have not recognized the problems in the home. They have not realized the impact that their actions and words have had on the children. They do not feel the children have been abused emotionally or physically. They view themselves as the victims in the case. They feel the children are being allowed to run the court and MDT and that the MDT should not be listening to the children’s wishes although all of the children at one time or another have expressed that they do not want to return to the family home.

7. The children have many concerns about returning home. They are concerned about the treatment they would receive if they return to the family home.

8. Hiram does not have any means of support.

(Footnote added).

On April 16, 2008, a status hearing was held to review the improvement period and the case plan. Rosemary’s counsel’s motion to meet with the children, in the presence of their guardian ad litem, was granted for the purpose of ascertaining the children’s wishes on where they would like to reside. The same counsel also made a request for Hiram to receive independent court-appointed counsel, which was denied.13 DHHR was requested to file the Children’s Case Plan by June 1, 2008. In an order entered June 13, 2008, the circuit court acknowledged receipt of the DHHR’s Children’s Case Plan. In that plan, the DHHR stated that

[w]hile participating in services the MDT has seen a significant amount of improvement from both Hiram and Rosemary. They have become more open to the children and dealing with them at their present ages. They have acknowledged a lack of information regarding Patricia’s illness and apologized for their treatment of her during a family session. Both Hiram and Rosemary have listened to what the children have to say-and how the children are feeling and then address the issues at hand. Both have learned to recognize the need to work together on the disciplining of the children so that the children can not triangulate the situation to achieve whatever goal they may have at the time. The children have become increasingly comfortable with Hiram and Rosemary. They have been able to express their fears without concerns of being shunned by Hiram. The children have had moments of wanting to return to the home and other moments of wanting to remain in foster care. Due to the family’s successful completion of the treatment plan, the Department has no *653alternative but to recommend reunification of the children with Hiram and Rosemary[.]

Therein, the DHHR recommended a reunification plan with the goal to transition Tiffany, Patricia, Joshua, and Brandon, upon completion of his residential treatment program, back to Rosemary’s home. In its June 13, 2008, order, the circuit court advised that it did not agree with the DHHR’s assessment of the ease and that it had reservations about the permanency plan for the children. Therefore, the lower court directed that the dispositional hearing scheduled for June 19, 2008, be held pursuant to W. Va.Code § 49-5D-3a (2004) (Repl. Vol. 2004)14 and that the MDT should present evidence as to its rationale for the proposed service plan.

A dispositional hearing was held June 19, 2008. Testimony was heard from the child protective services worker, a clinical therapist who provided individual and family therapy, a ease manager and counselor who provided parenting training, and two psychologists who provided therapy to the children. All of the witnesses indicated their recommendation that reunification be attempted between the children and Rosemary. At the conclusion of the testimony, all counsel, including the children’s guardian ad litem, recommended that the children be returned to Rosemary’s home with continued services and oversight by the DHHR. The matter was taken under advisement by the lower court, which set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law in its Dispositional Hearing Order entered July 3, 2008. In its order, the lower court stated that

in this case there is ample evidence already in the record to show that the treatment goals have not been met, that the Department [DHHR] chose to ignore significant facts, that both respondents testified falsely, and that the best interest of these children will not be served by returning them to this strange home.

(Emphasis in original). The lower court’s order emphasized its conclusions that Rosemary and Hiram failed to follow through with services, that they filed incorrigibility petitions on children when they reach a certain age and then shun that child, that the house is in disarray with little or no food and a flea infestation problem, that Hiram and Rosemary have failed to appreciate the extent of the physical and emotional abuse suffered by the children as a result of their actions and inactions, that the children were exposed to illegal drug abuse by adults in the home, and that Hiram and Rosemary view themselves as victims and fail to understand the impact of their behavior on the children. Moreover, the children, during an interview with the court on June 12, 2008, indicated their fear and concern about treatment they would receive if they were returned to the home, as well as the treatment they would receive if they did not want to return home, including Rosemary and Hiram’s anticipated refusal to let them visit any of their siblings who might have returned to the home. The lower court’s order further identified as a major concern that Hiram has no means of support, and identifying that there is a question as to whether Hiram and Rosemary can afford to feed and clothe the four children at issue.15 Significantly, in regards to the current place*654ments of the children outside of the home, the lower court order found that “[a]ll of these children continued to improve until contact with Hiram and Rosemary was increased. Their behavior then deteriorated.” (Emphasis in original).

The disposition in the lower court’s order was stated as follows:

The Court has seriously considered whether to grant a dispositional period of improvement. However, the Court denies the request for the following reasons:

1. There is no reason to believe that [Rosemary and Hiram] will change as has been set forth previously.

2. Any trial placement back in the home that didn’t work out would disrupt and possibly make return to current placements for the children impossible.

3. The children have regressed when they are around Rosemary and Hiram.

4. Given what has happened in this case, this Court simply cannot trust the members of this MDT to recognize and report to the Court if something were to go wrong.

The order directed “[t]hat any parental rights, including visitation of Rosemary .., and Hiram.... to Tiffany ... Patricia ... Joshua ... Brandon ... and Tessa.... are hereby TERMINATED.” The lower court further denied requests for post-termination visitation stating that “further visitation is not in the children’s best interests. It is clear from the reports ... that the children regress when they have contact with Hiram and Rosemary____The children need a clean break.” DHHR was, ordered to provide for significant visitation among the children. It is from this order that Rosemary appeals to this Court.

Subsequent to the lower court’s dispositional order, the DHHR has now filed a response with this Court wherein it alters the earlier recommendation made to the lower court. Because the children have improved so dramatically in their current placements, and because they seem to regress when they have any contact with Rosemary, DHHR is now advocating that the children remain in their current placements and that visitation with Rosemary occur only at the discretion of the individual children. Additionally, two new guardians ad litem subsequently were appointed because the original guardian ad litem took a public office and could no longer be involved in the case.16 The two new guardians performed their own independent assessment, including home visits and interviews. Their opinions are that the children’s best interests are to sever all contact with Rosemary and Hiram. The two guardians opine that there is ample concern for continuing emotional problems for the children and also conclude that the home is unsafe and uninhabitable for children. They do not recommend visitation. The guardians ask this Court to remand the case for the lower court to continue proceedings in accordance with its dispositional order so that permanency can be achieved for the children.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This case is before this Court on appeal from the circuit court’s order denying Rosemary’s request for a post-dispositional improvement period and denying her request for post-termination visitation. This Court has previously explained that, in the realm of an abuse and neglect case,

[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 *655and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. However, a reviewing court may not overturn a finding simply because it would have decided the ease 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 the Interest of: Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996). Mindful of the applicable standards, we proceed to consider the parties’ arguments.

III.

DISCUSSION

On appeal to this Court, Rosemary argues that the circuit court erred in denying her post-dispositional improvement period and in terminating her parental rights. Rosemary also alleges some procedural improprieties. Specifically, Rosemary asserts that the trial judge improperly obtained the testimony of the children and used these statements in violation of Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings.17 Further, she contends that the lower court improperly considered her modest income in deciding whether to terminate rights.18 She also contends that the dispositional order was improperly entered more then ten days from the hearing date in violation of Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings.19 Finally, because her son, Hiram, was also included in the improvement periods, Rose*656mary contends that he should have been appointed counsel.20

Initially, the DHHR and the original guardian ad litem advocated for the return of the children to the care of Rosemary, and this was the position advanced during the underlying proceedings. However, because these children have been in the same placement since 2007 and are doing extremely well and only seem to regress with any contact with Rosemary, the DHHR is now advocating that the children remain in their current placements and that visitation with Rosemary occur only at' the discretion of the individual children. The current guardians ad litem concur with the position of the DHHR expressed on appeal to this Court, with the exception that the guardians recommend that no visitation occur between the children and Rosemary.

As previously explained by this Court, “[although parents have substantial rights that must be protected, the primary goal in cases involving abuse and neglect, as in all family law matters, must be the health and welfare of the children.” Syl. pt. 3, In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996). Further guidance is provided as follows:

“ ‘Termination of parental rights, the most drastic remedy under the statutory provision covering the disposition of neglected children, W. Va.Code, 49-6-5 [1977] may be employed without the use of intervening less restrictive alternatives when it is found that there is no reasonable likelihood under W. Va.Code, 49-6-5(b) [1977] that conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected.’ Syllabus Point 2, In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980). Syllabus point 4, In re Jonathan P., 182 W.Va. 302, 387 S.E.2d 537 (1989).” Syllabus Point 1, In re Jeffrey R.L., 190 W.Va. 24, 435 S.E.2d 162 (1993).

Syl. pt. 7, In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589. Further, “ ‘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).” Syl. pt. 7, in part, In the Interest of Carlita B., 185 W.Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991). Thus, this Court elevates the health and welfare of the children above any parental rights of Rosemary to these children.

Significantly, in this case, the lower court found “by clear and convincing evidence that [Rosemary and Hiram] have failed to substantially comply with the treatment plan and the terms of the post-adjudicatory period of improvement.” Therefore, *657the trial court rejected the Children’s Case Plan. In this regard, 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 the Interest of Carlita B., id. While all of the MDT personnel opined that Rosemary had made great strides in her improvement period, the lower court found that she had failed to comply with the period of improvement. The lower court acknowledged that Rosemary had performed better toward the end of the treatment period; however, the court found that a view of the overall treatment period showed that little progress had actually been made. The lower court emphasized Rosemary and Hiram’s history of failing to follow through with services, the emotional abuse experienced by the children as a result of juvenile petitions filed by Rosemary against the ehildi’en when they reach a certain age, and the family shunning that continued even in the midst of group therapy sessions. Further, while Rosemary appears to have attempted to eradicate the cockroach problem from her house, there was recent evidence of a problem with flea infestations, which resulted in multiple bites to one of the children during a visit. Significantly, as found by the lower court, Rosemary fails to appreciate the extent of the physical and emotional abuse suffered by the children as a result of the actions and inactions by both Rosemary and Hiram.

The children have been in their current placements since 2007. By all accounts from the DHHR and the two current guardians ad litem, these children are doing better in their current placements than they ever have done, and they regress after any contact with Rosemary and/or Hiram. Thus, the circuit court’s determinations should be affirmed.

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the July 3, 2008, Dispositional Hearing Order by the Circuit Court of Mineral County is hereby affirmed. The termination of Rosemary’s parental rights to the children is affirmed, and the denial of post-dispositional visitation also is affirmed.21

Affirmed.

Chief Justice BENJAMIN and Justice WORKMAN concur and reserve the right to file concurring opinions.

WORKMAN, Justice,

concurring:

(Filed Oct. 26, 2009)

The majority’s decision is well-written and certainly reaches the right result for these children. Unfortunately, the years that the DHHR permitted these children to live in neglectful and abusive circumstances will likely have a negative impact for the rest of their lives.

Despite at least eleven referrals to the DHHR that began in 2001, it was not until June 12, 2007, that the DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition against Rosemary and Hiram. The DHHR’s 2007 petition did not occur until there were more than six years of very serious allegations of abuse and neglect, wherein children were removed from the home on four separate occasions beginning in 2003. Even then, as more fully discussed below, in its June 6, 2008, subsequent filing in the circuit court, prior to a June 19, 2008, dispositional hearing, and in spite of a mountain of disturbing evidence showing abuse and neglect toward these children, the DHHR recommended that these children be returned to Rosemary and Hiram. It is *658outrageous that seven children were left in despicable circumstances by the DHHR for more than six years and even then, that the DHHR still sought to place those children back in an unsafe environment.

It is important to review some of the underlying facts. As early as March 22, 2001, allegations arose that Rosemary did not have the proper medication for Brandon and, instead, was replacing it with sleeping medication. Again, on August 21, 2001, the DHHR was informed that Brandon’s medication was not being filled and that it was interfering with his schoolwork. Next, on August 14, 2002, the DHHR received a referral alleging that another child, Kenny, was being emotionally abused. With regard to the allegations concerning Kenny, even though the DHHR substantiated those charges of abuse, a case was not opened and the DHHR did not pursue an abuse and neglect petition. Instead, the DHHR referred Rosemary and Hiram to Family Preservation for parenting skills.

Soon thereafter, on August 27, 2002, the DHHR received a referral alleging that there was an immediate risk to the safety of Brittany, due to a discovery that she was having suicidal thoughts and had run away from home. On that same day, the DHHR received another referral alleging physical abuse, questionable disciplinary techniques, inadequate housing, and unrealistic expectations. Just a few weeks later, on September 5, 2002, the DHHR substantiated allegations that Rosemary hit the children with cake turners, withheld food as punishment, and mentally abused the children by threatening to send them back to Baltimore, Maryland, if they were bad. In this instance, sending the children back to Baltimore meant giving six children back to their biological parents, who were described by the circuit court as current and “long-time Baltimore drug addicts.”

As evidence of abuse and neglect against Rosemary and Hiram continued to accumulate, on January 29, 2003, Brittany was removed from Rosemary’s home on a juvenile petition, and returned to the home on February 26, 2003. She was again removed from Rosemary’s home on September 9, 2004, and remains in the custody of the DHHR. On March 11, 2004, Kenny was removed from Rosemary’s home by a juvenile petition, and was returned to the home on June 24, 2005. On September 9, 2004, the DHHR received yet another referral alleging inadequate care and emotional abuse in Rosemary’s home, while on September 6, 2005, the DHHR received a referral alleging that Rosemary was refusing to send Joshua to school. On December 18, 2006, the DHHR received a referral alleging that Hiram physically and mentally abused Kenny. Kenny was temporarily removed from the home due to a juvenile petition, and the DHHR substantiated the allegations of emotional abuse. Even after all of these events, the DHHR still failed to institute a petition for abuse and neglect at this point.

On January 5, 2007, another child, Brandon, was removed from Rosemary’s home and placed with the Division of Juvenile Services. On May 16, 2007, the DHHR received yet another referral, this time alleging that physical and emotional abuse was occurring in Rosemary’s home. The children disclosed to DHHR employees that Hiram’s sister, Serephine, her son Travis, and Travis’ girlfriend, Diane, had been living at Rosemary’s home, and that Hiram, Travis, and Diane had all overdosed at the home on numerous occasions. The children reported that Rosemary would give Hiram, Travis, and Diane milk when they passed out, and would only call an ambulance if she could not awaken them. The children alleged that Serephine’s children were all taken away due to her crack addiction, and that Serephine was incredibly mean to them calling them names like “slut” and “whore.” During the investigation for this referral, another child, Tiffany, was discovered with self-inflicted cut marks on her arms. Despite the fact that the DHHR substantiated emotional abuse and drug abuse in the home, and even witnessed emotional and physical harm to a child, it did not file a petition for abuse and neglect until June 12, 2007.

In its June 12, 2007, petition, the DHHR stated that “the [DHHR] has recently learned that Hiram is a convicted felon” and had been found guilty of drug possession and illegal transportation of firearms. It further *659pointed out that Hiram’s sister, Serephine, was awaiting trial on charges of driving while under the influence of drugs, and that she had a criminal background of larceny, stalking, domestic violence, obstruction, and telephone misuse. It was also reported that Serephine’s son Travis, who was now living in Rosemary’s home, had a criminal background consisting of arson, theft, destruction of property, obstruction, harm and injury, assault, verbal threats, and conspiracy.

The DHHR contended that remaining in the home would “further endanger the children” and that “[t]he parents have failed to benefit from previous intervention and services and the same dangerous behaviors continue to exist in the home.” Thus, the DHHR stated that it “fears for their safety” and that there was “no alternative but the removal of the children from the home.” Notwithstanding its earlier position, however, during a June 6, 2008, hearing before the circuit court, the DHHR had the audacity to recommend that four of the children be reunified with Rosemary and Hiram. It further recommended that a fifth child remain in the foster care system and become a ward of the state. It is important to explain that the only reason the DHHR did not recommend that the fifth child be returned to Rosemary, is that Rosemary and Hiram no longer wanted that child. Moreover, at the time of the DHHR’s petition, the remaining two children had turned eighteen and were no longer under the circuit court’s jurisdiction. Given the overwhelming evidence below, it is inconceivable that the DHHR could take a position that would have placed these children back in Rosemary’s home.

In spite of the DHHR’s misguided posture on placement of the children, following a June 19, 2008, dispositional hearing, the circuit court wisely disagreed with the DHHR and terminated Rosemary and Hiram’s parental rights. The circuit court noted that this was one of the “most unusual procedural situations of any abuse and neglect case this judge has encountered in ten years on the bench.” He pointed out that Rosemary, who was seventy-five-years-old at the time of her dispositional hearing, and her forty-seven-year-old son, Hiram, were never approved as a foster home in Maryland or West Virginia; yet, they had seven children living in their home who were instructed to call them “Mom and Dad,” none of whom were related by either blood or marriage to Rosemary or Hiram. The circuit court states that there was never even a child protective service case regarding these children in Maryland, and that “[t]he various cases seemed to be handled in family court, if at all.” Incredibly, the biological parents’ rights to six of the children were not even terminated until December 12, 2007, while the biological mother’s rights to the seventh child are still pending in the lower court. These children were ages two to twelve when they came to West Virginia, but were ages nine to nineteen at the time of the first dispositional hearing in the circuit court. Even then, as previously discussed, the DHHR was willing to leave these children in the care of Rosemary and Hiram. Why were these children failed by West Virginia and Maryland year after year?

There were countless red flags that should have triggered swift and meaningful action by the DHHR toward these children as numerous acts of abuse and unhealthy living conditions in Rosemary’s home were substantiated throughout the years. As the circuit court stated, “A deplorable pattern was revealed.” The circuit court further explained that “[a]s soon as a child gets old enough to report abuse, Rosemary would file a juvenile petition to get rid of and punish the child. That child is then shunned by Rosemary and Hiram.” Clearly, these children lived in deplorable physical and emotional circumstances. Nonetheless, even though it was reported that a goat and a lamb were living inside the house, and that the house had a significant cockroach and flea infestation problem, in addition to the myriad reports of emotional and physical abuse, the DHHR found no reason to take action during those time periods.

Rosemary and Hiram’s treatment of Patricia is also troubling. As the circuit court explained, “One of the best examples of how the DHHR, Guardian ad Litem and other MDT [Multidisciplinary team] members have overlooked the obvious is the cruel and com*660pletely unnecessary treatment of Patricia because she has Hepatitis C.” It is believed that Patricia contracted Hepatitis C as an infant when her biological mother stabbed her with a dirty needle used for drug abuse. Throughout her time in Rosemary’s home, Patricia was not allowed to use the family bathroom and was forced to use a bucket for a toilet that was located in a trailer outside of the home and without working plumbing. As the circuit court explained, “she was ostracized from the family at mealtime and in other ways [and she] was told she would die before she was sixteen.” Rosemary and Hiram treated Patricia in this despicable manner in spite of well-documented evidence in the record that they had received specific and detailed medical advice to the contrary from numerous individuals. Earlier involvement by the DHHR could have prevented this situation altogether.

It is frustrating that it was not until this appeal, and after the circuit court terminated the parental rights of Rosemary and Hiram in 2008, that the DHHR finally took the position that the children remain in their current placements and that visitation with Rosemary occur only at the discretion of the individual children. The DHHR is about eight years late. Where was the DHHR as continued abuse and neglect occurred with child after child, year after year?

In consideration of all of the above, as well as the countless other cases throughout the years regarding the DHHR’s responsibilities toward the children of this State, we face an epidemic in child protective services in West Virginia that will necessarily affect future generations as they almost always re-appear within the court system battered, bruised, and often broken; or as abusers in their adult families; and often as criminals. It is clear that most child protective service workers in West Virginia are dedicated and conscientious, but also overworked, and underpaid. This concurring opinion is in no way intended to denigrate their work. Instead, the intent is to issue a clarion call to the DHHR to provide child protective services with more resources and more direction in protecting children as provided in an extensive body of both statutory and case law.

It is also important to note that from the earliest time these children came to the DHHR’s attention, some inquiry should have been made as to their legal status. The record reflects that Rosemary and Hiram had only a legal guardianship of the children executed by the children’s biological parents and endorsed by a Maryland court. Once these children fell in West Virginia’s jurisdiction by virtue of the earliest abuse and neglect allegations, the DHHR should have begun an ongoing inquiry into the legal status of the children. Case law has made clear that every child is entitled to permanency to the greatest extent the legal system can ensure it. See State ex rel. Amy M. v. Kaufman, 196 W.Va. 251, 470 S.E.2d 205 (1996); In re Jonathan G., 198 W.Va. 716, 482 S.E.2d 893 (1996); In re Brian D., 194 W.Va. 623, 461 S.E.2d 129 (1995); In re Lindsey C., 196 W.Va. 395, 473 S.E.2d 110 (1995) (Workman, J., dissenting); In re Carlita B., 185 W.Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991). The DHHR should have acted very early to begin concurrent planning,1 more effective intervention, and permanency in the children’s lives — permanency in “the level of custody, care, commitment, nurturing and discipline that is consistent with ... [a] child’s best interests.” State v. Michael M., 202 W.Va. 350, 358, 504 S.E.2d 177, 185 (1998). This Court observed in Amy M., supra, that a child deserves “resolution and permanency” in his or her life and deserves the right to rely on his or her caretakers “to be there to provide the basic nurturanee of life.” 196 W.Va. at 260, 470 S.E.2d at 214. Moreover, “the best interests of the child is the polar star by which decisions must be made which affect children.” Michael K.T. v. Tina L.T., 182 W.Va. 399, 405, 387 S.E.2d 866, 872 (1989) (citation omitted).

*661This Court has consistently held that abuse and neglect cases must be given the highest priority to ensure their prompt resolution in order to provide permanency for the children involved therein. See Syllabus Point 1, In re Carlita B., supra. It is a child’s natural right to have proper care, adequate nutrition, shelter, and nurturanee; and to not be neglected, abused, or forced to live in a substandard, scarring environment. But in too many cases in this Court, we see children who are denied permanency by being left in legal limbo for long periods of time during their formative years. This phenomenon not only causes concern that this may be the tip of the iceberg, but engenders the question as to whether we must begin to reexamine child protective services in a more systemic manner.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, I respectfully concur with the majority opinion.

BENJAMIN, Chief Justice,

concurring:

(Filed Dee. 22, 2009)

I concur completely in the majority per curiam opinion of the Court. The July 3, 2008 Dispositional Hearing Order of the circuit court and the termination of rights and denial of post-dispositional visitation was proper. As I wrote earlier this year in my concurrence to the Court’s decision in State ex rel. WVDHHR v. Pancake, 224 W.Va. 224 W.Va. 39, 680 S.E.2d 54 (2009) (C.J. Benjamin, concurring): “Our guiding principle in eases such as this is the health and welfare of the child. These cases deservedly receive the highest priority of the court system’s attention — a priority which applies to government in general. In re Carlita B., 185 W.Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991).”

I write separately to express my continuing frustration with the failures of the Department of Health and Human Resources (“DHHR”) to comply in a timely manner with its legal mandate to help families and children in West Virginia. My concerns are shared by Justice Workman and, I believe, by others on this Court.1 The harsh emotional tone adopted by Justice Workman in her concurrence, I believe, richly conveys the general frustration of many with DHHR’s inability to meet its legal mandate — an inability which, I believe, will necessarily require this Court to resolve the issue if nothing is done.

In view of the continuing inability of the DHHR to meet its legal mandate to the children and families of West Virginia, I believe that this Court must soon consider the creation of a commission to ensure that all legal mandates are adequately met by the DHHR.