Background
In June 2024, the West Virginia Department of Human Services filed an abuse and neglect petition against mother C.W. concerning her two children, H.C. and G.C. The petition alleged that C.W. had used controlled substances in the children’s presence and failed to protect H.C. from repeated sexual abuse by C.W.’s husband and the children’s stepfather, H.W. During Child Advocacy Center interviews, H.C. disclosed that H.W. showed her pornographic images, offered her money to pose for pornographic photos, watched her shower, photographed her, fondled her, and forced her to perform oral sex on him. G.C. corroborated the drug use and some of H.W.’s conduct, and disclosed that H.W. once struck him with a pizza paddle hard enough to break it.
Following adjudicatory hearings in November and December 2024, the Circuit Court of Summers County found that C.W. had abused and neglected H.C. both psychologically and mentally, failed to protect H.C. from H.W.’s sexual abuse, and used controlled substances in the home in both children’s presence. At a May 2025 dispositional hearing, H.W. relinquished any parental or custodial rights he held. A CPS worker testified that C.W. remained married to and cohabited with H.W., refused to cooperate in developing a family case plan, and had not acknowledged the abuse — making it unlikely conditions could be corrected in the near future.
The circuit court terminated C.W.’s parental rights by order dated May 12, 2025, finding no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be substantially corrected and that termination was in the children’s best interests. The children’s father’s parental rights remained intact, and the permanency plan is for the children to remain in his care. C.W. appealed, arguing the court failed to employ the least restrictive alternative.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order in a unanimous memorandum decision. The court acknowledged the general rule that the least restrictive alternative should be employed in custody proceedings under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604, but applied the established exception that termination may proceed without less restrictive alternatives when there is no reasonable likelihood that conditions of abuse and neglect can be substantially corrected. The court cited In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011), for that proposition.
The court found the record fully supported the circuit court’s no-reasonable-likelihood determination. C.W.’s failure to acknowledge the abuse rendered the underlying problems untreatable, her refusal to participate in a family case plan satisfied the statutory predicate under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(d)(2), and her continued cohabitation with H.W. — despite his sexual abuse of H.C. — confirmed that the dangerous conditions persisted. The court further noted that C.W. did not challenge the circuit court’s independent finding that termination was in the children’s best interests, which provided an additional statutory basis for the disposition under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6).
Key Takeaways
- Termination of parental rights may proceed without less restrictive alternatives when there is no reasonable likelihood that conditions of abuse or neglect can be substantially corrected in the near future, even where the general rule favors the least restrictive alternative.
- A parent’s failure to acknowledge the existence of abuse or neglect renders the problem untreatable and supports a finding of no reasonable likelihood of correction.
- Refusal to cooperate in developing a family case plan is a statutory ground establishing that conditions of abuse or neglect are unlikely to be substantially corrected, under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(d)(2).
- Continued cohabitation with a known abuser after formal proceedings begin weighs heavily against a parent in dispositional determinations.
Why It Matters
This decision reaffirms the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals’ framework for bypassing the least-restrictive-alternative requirement in parental termination cases. For practitioners and child welfare agencies, it underscores that a parent’s denial of abuse and ongoing relationship with the abuser — rather than any single factor — can collectively justify immediate termination without first exhausting lesser interventions such as custodial restrictions or extended improvement periods.
The case also illustrates the practical significance of a parent’s failure to engage with a family case plan. By declining to participate, C.W. not only triggered a statutory presumption against correction under § 49-4-604(d)(2) but also foreclosed any argument that additional time or services might have made a difference — a dynamic courts across the country frequently confront when balancing family reunification goals against child safety imperatives.