In re C.P., J.P., and A.H. — West Virginia high court upheld termination of mother’s parental rights

Case
In re C.P., J.P., and A.H.
Court
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
Judge
Chief Justice C. Haley Bunn; Justice William R. Wooton; Justice Charles S. Trump IV; Justice H. L. Kirkpatrick; Justice James W. Flanigan
Date Decided
September 22, 2026
Docket No.
25-583
Topics
Child Neglect, Parental Rights, Substance Abuse, Educational Neglect
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

The West Virginia Department of Human Services filed an abuse-and-neglect petition alleging that Mother A.M. abused drugs, medically neglected C.P. and J.P., and educationally neglected J.P. and A.H. The evidence included allegations that the younger children had gone without appropriate medical and dental care, that J.P. had not been enrolled in school before agency involvement, and that drug paraphernalia was found within C.P.’s reach. The mother admitted using fentanyl and acknowledged burnt foil and razor blades were in the home.

A.H. had lived with her maternal grandparents for several years without a formal custody or guardianship arrangement. The mother knew that A.H. had mental-health issues and had missed substantial school but took no concrete steps to address those problems. After adjudicating the mother for neglect, the circuit court terminated her parental rights to all three children.

The Court’s Holding

The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that clear and convincing evidence supported the findings that the mother neglected C.P. and J.P. The circuit court could rely on preliminary-hearing evidence admitted without objection, including testimony about deficient medical, dental, and educational care, as well as the mother’s fentanyl use. The appellate court declined the mother’s invitation to credit her testimony over contrary evidence because weighing evidence and assessing credibility are functions of the trial court.

The court also upheld the neglect adjudication concerning A.H. Although the child had lived with her grandparents for years, the mother retained parental rights, knew about A.H.’s extensive school absences and mental-health problems, and failed to take concrete remedial action. The child’s residence outside the mother’s home therefore did not preclude a neglect finding.

Key Takeaways

  • Clear and convincing evidence supported neglect findings based on unmet medical, dental, and educational needs and parental substance abuse.
  • An appellate court will not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility resolved by the circuit court.
  • A child’s long-term residence with grandparents does not bar adjudication of a parent’s remaining rights when the statutory definition of neglect is satisfied.

Why It Matters

The decision confirms that West Virginia courts may consider the full evidentiary record admitted at adjudication, including evidence incorporated from a preliminary hearing without objection, when determining whether neglect was proven by clear and convincing evidence.

It also underscores that a parent may remain responsible for a child’s supervision, education, and care even when the child has lived informally with relatives for years. An informal placement does not insulate the parent from a neglect adjudication where the parent retains rights, knows the child’s needs are unmet, and fails to act.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top