Background
The West Virginia Department of Human Services (DHS) filed an abuse and neglect petition in November 2023 against Petitioner Mother T.B. concerning five of her children. The petition detailed a long history of CPS involvement dating back to February 2023, citing the mother’s learning disabilities, lack of stable housing, substance abuse, and repeated medical neglect — including missing nearly forty medical appointments for A.B., a toddler with serious congenital conditions including heart disease, hydronephrosis, and failure to thrive. Prior to filing the petition, the DHS had already provided the family with transportation assistance and paid for hotel stays during A.B.’s medical care, but the mother refused to arrange her own transportation, leading to continued missed appointments.
The mother stipulated to the allegations in January 2024 and was adjudicated an abusive and/or neglectful parent of four of the children. The circuit court granted her a post-adjudicatory improvement period with conditions including drug screening, parenting classes, individual counseling, a psychological evaluation, employment, and stable housing. A fifth child, E.B., was born during the proceedings and was added to the petition after the DHS alleged the mother used marijuana during the pregnancy and struck one of the older children during a supervised visit. The mother was ultimately adjudicated abusive and/or neglectful as to E.B. as well.
At the dispositional hearing in June 2025, the mother testified to some gains — she had obtained an apartment and employment and completed parenting classes. However, a DHS worker testified that the mother repeatedly tested positive for marijuana, stopped participating in drug screening in September 2024, never progressed to unsupervised visitation after striking her child, and showed no documented improvement in parenting skills. A psychological evaluation found the mother’s IQ to be between 64 and 67 — in the lowest one percent — and concluded she lacked the mental capacity to consistently prioritize her children’s needs over her own. Both her life skills coach and her psychological evaluator concluded she was unable to parent all five children. The mother also failed to appear for the rescheduled final hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s July 7, 2025, order terminating the mother’s parental rights to all five children, finding no clear error in the circuit court’s factual findings and no legal error in its conclusions. The court rejected the mother’s argument that termination was premature without first determining whether she could parent with intensive long-term assistance. Applying the standard from In re Billy Joe M., 206 W. Va. 1, 521 S.E.2d 173 (1999), the court found the DHS had already made the required thorough effort — providing supervised visitation, parenting classes, a life skills coach, a psychological evaluation, drug screening, and pre-petition transportation and housing assistance — and that the record supported the circuit court’s determination that the mother could not parent adequately even with that support.
The court also upheld the termination under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6), finding ample evidence of no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future. The court emphasized that partial compliance with a case plan — such as obtaining housing and employment — does not preclude a finding of failure to improve overall parenting. The mother’s ongoing marijuana use, refusal to drug screen, physical striking of a child during visits, and the expert conclusions about her parental capacity all supported the circuit court’s findings.
As to the argument that less restrictive alternatives should have been considered first, the court reiterated that termination may proceed without exhausting less restrictive alternatives once a court finds no reasonable likelihood that abuse or neglect conditions can be substantially corrected. The court noted the children’s need for permanency as an additional factor supporting termination. The decision was unanimous among the four participating justices; Justice Trump was disqualified.
Key Takeaways
- Under In re Billy Joe M., termination of a parent’s rights based on intellectual incapacity requires a thorough effort to determine whether the parent can care for children with intensive long-term assistance — but that standard is satisfied where the DHS provided extensive services and evidence showed the parent could not adequately parent even with that help.
- Partial compliance with a case plan (e.g., obtaining housing and employment) does not prevent a termination finding if the parent has failed to improve overall parenting skills and attitude.
- Once a court finds no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction of abuse or neglect conditions, West Virginia law permits immediate termination without first trying less restrictive alternatives.
- A parent’s failure to appear at a final dispositional hearing, ongoing noncompliance with drug screening, and expert assessments of persistent parental incapacity can collectively support a no-reasonable-likelihood finding even where some case plan goals were met.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the boundaries of the intellectual-disability protection established in In re Billy Joe M. and clarified in In re Maranda T. While West Virginia courts must make a good-faith effort to support parents with cognitive limitations before moving to termination, this case illustrates that the obligation is one of reasonable effort — not indefinite provision of services in the face of demonstrated parental incapacity. Courts may balance a parent’s right to remediation against the children’s right to timely permanency.
For practitioners, the decision highlights the evidentiary weight courts will give to psychological evaluations, life skills coach reports, and drug screening records in dispositional proceedings. Attorneys representing parents with intellectual disabilities should engage early and aggressively with the service plan and ensure that expert evidence addresses not just independent functioning but the specific demands of parenting multiple children with complex needs.