Background
In November 2023, the West Virginia Department of Human Services filed an abuse and neglect petition against a mother and father after discovering the family was homeless, had been evicted for nonpayment of rent, and was living in severely cluttered and inadequate conditions with the paternal grandparents. The four children had numerous unexcused school absences, and a nine-year-old child reported that the mother would become intoxicated and the child would stay up to prevent her from falling. The circuit court adjudicated the mother of neglect for failing to provide fit, apt, and suitable housing, and granted her a six-month post-adjudicatory improvement period requiring her to obtain suitable housing, submit to drug screening, and complete parenting classes.
By mid-2024, the mother had obtained employment and suitable housing, and the DHS recommended gradual reunification. However, the September 2024 dispositional hearing was continued after the DHS learned the mother had a new boyfriend, G.L., whose criminal history from Florida and Maryland revealed convictions for domestic battery, manufacturing and distributing narcotics, unlawful possession, theft, and probation violations between 2003 and 2008. The DHS advised the mother that G.L. could not live in her home with the children. Despite assuring the DHS she would “choose her children,” witnesses observed G.L.’s vehicle regularly parked at her home and the mother driving his vehicle.
At the October 2024 hearing, the mother testified that G.L. “stays with me most of the time” and that whether she would end the relationship was “up to the courts to decide.” The circuit court granted a 45-day improvement period extension on the condition that the mother completely discontinue her relationship with G.L. and cease all contact outside of work. At the December 2024 final dispositional hearing, evidence included a Facebook photo of the mother with G.L. posted after the October hearing showing she had taken his last name, and the father testified he had seen G.L. at her home the night before the hearing. The circuit court found the mother’s denials not credible and terminated her parental rights.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s December 28, 2024, order terminating the mother’s parental rights. The court held that the circuit court’s credibility determinations—finding the mother’s testimony that she had ended her relationship with G.L. to be evasive and incredible, and crediting the father’s testimony that G.L. was at her home the night before the final hearing—were entitled to deference on appeal. Reviewing courts cannot assess witness credibility through a record and will not second-guess such determinations or reweigh evidence.
The court further held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding no reasonable likelihood that the condition of neglect could be substantially corrected in the foreseeable future and that termination was necessary for the children’s welfare under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6). The court reiterated that compliance with improvement period terms is only one factor in the dispositional analysis; the controlling standard remains the best interests of the child. By maintaining her relationship with G.L. in violation of the court’s order, the mother failed to correct the underlying condition of neglect—her failure to provide a fit, apt, and suitable home.
The mother’s argument that the court acted arbitrarily in prohibiting her relationship with G.L. given the remoteness of his criminal convictions was deemed waived. The mother never raised this objection before the circuit court and raised it for the first time during oral argument before the Supreme Court, which the court held was too late to preserve the issue for appellate review. The court directed the circuit court to evaluate on remand whether continued post-termination visitation with the children would be in the children’s best interests and not detrimental to their well-being or their permanent placement.
Key Takeaways
- Compliance with all improvement period terms does not guarantee reunification; the circuit court retains discretion to terminate parental rights if it determines that termination, rather than reunification, serves the best interests of the children.
- Credibility determinations made by a circuit court after live testimony are virtually unreviewable on appeal; the Supreme Court will not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the trier of fact’s assessment of witness credibility.
- A parent who fails to timely object to a condition of an improvement period—such as a prohibition on associating with a particular individual—waives any challenge to that condition on appeal, even if the condition may have been constitutionally or factually questionable.
- Justice Wooton’s concurrence signals concern that courts may impose overbroad associational restrictions in abuse and neglect cases without adequate factual grounding, and invites future litigants to make a timely record challenging such restrictions under constitutional and statutory limits.
Why It Matters
This decision underscores the high stakes of improvement period compliance in West Virginia abuse and neglect proceedings and the limits of appellate review. Parents who satisfy most improvement period conditions but violate a single court-ordered restriction—particularly one tied directly to the fitness of their home—face termination of parental rights even if they have made significant progress. The case illustrates that a circuit court’s explicit warning that reunification is not guaranteed, combined with a parent’s defiance of a specific court order, can be sufficient to support termination.
Justice Wooton’s concurrence raises a significant due process concern that may shape future litigation: circuit courts possess broad discretion in fashioning improvement period conditions, but that discretion has constitutional and statutory limits. Attorneys representing parents in abuse and neglect proceedings should carefully evaluate the legal basis for any associational restrictions imposed by the circuit court and promptly object and build a record at the trial level—because, as this case demonstrates, the issue will be waived if not timely raised.