Background
D.W., the maternal grandmother and court-appointed legal guardian of J.G. and M.A., came to the attention of the West Virginia Department of Human Services in October 2023 following allegations of chronic failure to supervise the children. J.G., then eleven years old, was stealing weapons and bicycles, roaming Rainelle unsupervised for hours, and had been expelled for bringing a knife to school; community members were regularly feeding him because he was hungry. M.A., age five, was observed by a CPS worker running alone in the street and was found going unsupervised to neighbors’ homes while D.W. slept. D.W. stipulated to neglect at a December 2023 adjudicatory hearing, and the circuit court adjudicated both children as neglected.
In January 2024, the circuit court granted D.W. a post-adjudicatory improvement period requiring her to maintain employment and housing, participate in psychological and substance abuse treatment, submit to random drug screens, attend parenting classes, and visit the children. At the June 2025 dispositional hearing, the evidence showed D.W. had missed 45 of 65 drug screens, tested positive for benzodiazepines on multiple occasions and for oxycodone in March 2025 without disclosing a valid prescription for benzodiazepines, did not begin therapy until the week before the hearing, and had a May 2025 phone call with the children that ended with her threatening to remove them from their foster home—leaving M.A. “sobbing hysterically.” Both children had refused visitation with D.W. since February 2025.
D.W. testified that she had substantially complied with the improvement period, citing stable housing and finances and her recent commencement of therapy. She attributed her missed drug screens to lack of transportation and, notably, stated that the main problem in the case was that J.G. “wouldn’t listen” and that her parenting skills were unchanged from when the petition was filed. The circuit court found that she had demonstrated an unwillingness and inability to comply with services and refused to acknowledge any need for improvement, and it terminated her guardianship rights. D.W. appealed, arguing the court should have imposed a less restrictive alternative.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s termination order in a unanimous memorandum decision. The court held that termination of guardianship rights without resort to less restrictive alternatives is proper when the record supports a finding that there is no reasonable likelihood the conditions of neglect can be substantially corrected in the near future and that termination is necessary for the children’s welfare, citing In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011), and W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6).
The court found ample evidentiary support for that conclusion: D.W. skipped the overwhelming majority of required drug screens, did not engage in any therapy until the eve of disposition, and — most critically — refused to acknowledge that her own conduct contributed to the neglect. Citing In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44 (2013), the court reiterated that a problem must first be acknowledged before it can be remedied, and D.W.’s own testimony that her parenting skills were unchanged demonstrated she had not reached that threshold.
The court also noted that although D.W. was the children’s guardian rather than a biological parent, the dispositional standards of W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) — including the authority to terminate “parental, custodial and guardianship rights” — apply equally in the guardianship context. Finding no clear error in the circuit court’s factual findings and no error in its legal conclusions, the court declined to disturb the order.
Key Takeaways
- West Virginia courts may terminate guardianship rights without first exhausting less restrictive alternatives when the record establishes no reasonable likelihood that neglect conditions can be corrected in the near future and termination is necessary for the child’s welfare.
- A guardian’s failure to engage meaningfully with a court-ordered improvement period — particularly missing the vast majority of drug screens and delaying therapy until the eve of disposition — supports a finding that conditions of neglect cannot be substantially corrected.
- A guardian who refuses to acknowledge any personal responsibility for neglect, as D.W. did by blaming J.G.’s behavior and stating her parenting was unchanged, forecloses the possibility of remediation and independently supports termination.
- The dispositional requirements and termination authority of W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) apply to legal guardians in abuse and neglect proceedings, not only to biological parents.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that improvement periods in West Virginia abuse and neglect cases carry real consequences: a guardian who participates only superficially, avoids drug testing, and refuses self-reflection cannot defeat termination simply by pointing to housing stability or a single clean drug screen taken weeks before the dispositional hearing. The opinion makes clear that courts will look at the totality of compliance — and the quality of engagement — not isolated favorable data points.
The case also clarifies, in a published memorandum decision, that the full apparatus of West Virginia’s abuse and neglect statutes — including outright termination — applies to legal guardians just as it does to parents. Attorneys representing grandparents and other kinship guardians in dependency proceedings should advise clients that their custodial rights carry the same obligations, and the same risks, as parental rights.