Background
Beginning in January 2023, the two children at issue — A.G. and A.W.-1 — were subjects of guardianship proceedings in Putnam County Circuit Court. Allegations arose that their mother, A.W.-2, abused drugs and alcohol and exposed the children to domestic violence. The Department of Human Services (“DHS”) provided parenting services and assisted the mother in obtaining substance abuse treatment. After cycles of relapse and improvement, the guardianship for A.G. was terminated in November 2023 and shared custody was established with the child’s father.
In May 2024, the DHS filed a new abuse and neglect petition after the mother drove under the influence of alcohol with A.W.-1 in the vehicle, admitted to relapsing, and had left a treatment program prematurely against medical advice. At the November 2024 adjudicatory hearing, the mother stipulated to polysubstance abuse issues and to having endangered the children. The circuit court adjudicated her of abuse and neglect, finding her drug and alcohol use seriously impaired her parenting, that she exposed the children to domestic violence, and that her actions harmed or threatened to harm the children.
In March 2025, the mother moved for a stipulated disposition seeking acceptance of a voluntary relinquishment of custodial rights (rather than full parental rights) and post-termination visitation. The circuit court declined to accept that limited relinquishment, proceeded to a dispositional hearing, and ultimately terminated the mother’s parental rights. The court found no reasonable likelihood that conditions of abuse and neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future, noting the mother had entered rehabilitation three times in the prior year, continued to test positive for multiple substances, and failed to benefit from nearly two years of parenting services. The court did not, however, rule on the mother’s pending motion for post-termination visitation.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s dispositional order in all substantive respects. It upheld the refusal to accept the voluntary relinquishment of only custodial rights, noting that circuit courts have discretion to reject a proffered voluntary termination and proceed to involuntary termination after an independent review of relevant factors — which the circuit court had properly conducted here. The court likewise upheld the denial of a post-adjudicatory improvement period, finding ample evidence that the mother was unlikely to improve given nearly two years of failed services and repeated relapses, and affirmed the termination of parental rights under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604, finding sufficient evidence of habitual substance abuse and failure to respond to rehabilitative efforts.
On the post-termination visitation issue, however, the court remanded with directions. Because the circuit court had never ruled on the mother’s motion for post-termination visitation at the dispositional stage, and had subsequently denied a guardian ad litem’s motion on the issue during the appeal without notice to or participation by the mother, the appellate court found it lacked an adequate record for review. Relying on In re Edward B. and In re Marley M., the court held that adequate findings must be made to protect litigants’ rights and enable appellate review, and that a parent who properly moves for post-termination visitation must be afforded the opportunity to present evidence and be heard.
On remand, the circuit court is directed to enter an order analyzing whether post-termination visitation is in the children’s best interests under the standards set forth in In re Christina L. and the recently amended Rule 15(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings. If visitation is granted, the court must establish a specific visitation plan rather than leaving visitation to the placement’s discretion.
Key Takeaways
- A circuit court has broad discretion to reject a parent’s proffer of voluntary relinquishment of only custodial rights and to proceed instead to involuntary termination of full parental rights, so long as the court independently weighs relevant factors such as the length of proceedings, the children’s ages, and permanency needs.
- Repeated relapses and failure to complete rehabilitation programs across nearly two years of court involvement, even while receiving active parenting services, constitutes sufficient evidence that there is no reasonable likelihood conditions of abuse and neglect can be substantially corrected, supporting termination without further less-restrictive alternatives.
- A circuit court must affirmatively rule on a properly filed motion for post-termination visitation at disposition and must afford the moving parent notice and an opportunity to be heard; failure to do so — including a subsequent ruling on another party’s motion during appeal without the parent’s participation — requires remand for proper findings.
- If post-termination visitation is granted, the court must establish a concrete visitation plan; it may not delegate that determination to the child’s placement.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that West Virginia circuit courts retain significant discretion in dispositional proceedings and are not bound by the positions of the DHS or guardian ad litem when weighing whether to accept a parent’s proposed voluntary relinquishment in lieu of full termination. Practitioners representing parents should be aware that proposing a lesser disposition — such as relinquishment of custodial rights only — does not constrain the court’s authority to terminate all parental rights if it independently concludes that is the appropriate outcome.
The remand on post-termination visitation also serves as a procedural reminder: motions properly raised at disposition must be ruled upon at disposition, with full due process for the moving party. The court’s citation to the recently amended Rule 15(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings signals that clearer standards for post-termination visitation are now in effect statewide, and practitioners should consult the amended rule when advising clients whose parental rights are at risk.