Background
The West Virginia Department of Human Services filed an abuse-and-neglect petition alleging that G.B. failed to provide A.B. and S.B. with necessities, supervision, housing, and financial support, and that substance abuse impaired her parenting. The petition also cited her history of domestic violence, substance abuse, housing instability, voluntary relinquishments as to two children, and a prior involuntary termination as to another child.
G.B. stipulated at adjudication that domestic violence occurred in the children’s presence and that domestic violence involving A.B.’s father had contributed to the earlier termination. She sought an improvement period. At the continued dispositional hearing, however, she did not appear after being expressly warned that her absence could lead to termination. A CPS worker testified that G.B. poorly complied with services, ended visits early, and stopped participating entirely after an alleged stabbing of the father despite a protective order.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order. It held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying an improvement period because G.B. did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that she was likely to fully participate. Her service noncompliance, continued domestic-violence pattern, disengagement after the alleged assault, and failure to attend the dispositional hearing supported that conclusion.
The Court also held that clear and convincing evidence supported findings that there was no reasonable likelihood G.B. could substantially correct the conditions of abuse and neglect in the near future and that termination was necessary for the children’s welfare. The circuit court could therefore terminate parental rights without first employing a less restrictive alternative.
Key Takeaways
- A parent seeking an improvement period must prove a likelihood of full participation by clear and convincing evidence.
- Failure to engage in services and cooperate with a family case plan may support a finding that conditions cannot be substantially corrected.
- Termination may be ordered without intermediate alternatives when correction is not reasonably likely and termination is necessary for the children’s welfare.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an improvement period is discretionary and depends on demonstrated readiness to participate, not merely a request for services. It also confirms that appellate courts will defer to the circuit court’s weighing of CPS testimony and credibility determinations in abuse-and-neglect dispositions.