Background
The West Virginia Department of Human Services filed an abuse-and-neglect petition in December 2023 alleging that J.Q. failed to supervise G.H. and B.Q., neglected their hygiene, and kept them in an unsafe and unsanitary home. The petition also cited concerns about drug abuse after J.Q. failed to comply with an ordered drug screen.
J.Q. stipulated at adjudication that the home was unsafe or unsanitary and agreed that her participation in medication-assisted treatment could be addressed during an improvement period. The circuit court granted and later extended a post-adjudicatory improvement period, requiring, among other things, participation in family treatment court, compliance with its rules, and suitable housing.
Evidence at later hearings showed that J.Q. sought to leave family treatment court, missed drug screens, was dishonest about her whereabouts, tested positive for methamphetamine, and declined a count of her medication-assisted-treatment prescription. Witnesses also described her disengagement during visits, which were eventually suspended. The circuit court terminated her parental and custodial rights after finding no reasonable likelihood that the conditions could be corrected in the near future and that termination was necessary for the children’s welfare.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that J.Q. waived her challenge to the alleged lack of mental-health services because she did not object to her improvement-period terms or request those services below. In any event, the record showed that DHS provided a psychological evaluation, but J.Q. was dishonest with the evaluator and denied having symptoms sufficient for a diagnosis.
The court further held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding the improvement period unsuccessful. Substantial evidence supported that determination, including J.Q.’s noncompliance with family treatment court and drug screening, her poor participation in visitation, concerns about misuse of her prescription, and her own admission that the improvement period had not succeeded.
Termination was also properly based on J.Q.’s failure to participate in services, refusal to acknowledge the underlying abuse and neglect, and lack of interest in visits—not on unadjudicated issues. Because the circuit court made the statutory findings that correction was not reasonably likely in the near future and termination was necessary for the children’s welfare, it was not required to use a less restrictive alternative.
Key Takeaways
- A parent who does not raise objections to improvement-period services in circuit court generally waives that issue on appeal.
- Failure to participate in an improvement period can independently support termination of parental rights.
- When the statutory findings for termination are established, a court need not first impose a less restrictive disposition.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an improvement period is assessed by its overall success, not simply by completion of individual case-plan tasks. A parent’s engagement with treatment, honesty with providers, participation in visitation, and acknowledgment of the conditions that led to intervention may all bear on whether reunification remains realistic.