Background
In November 2024, the West Virginia Department of Human Services filed an abuse and neglect petition against the father, R.A., after he discharged a firearm during a domestic dispute outside the bedrooms of his four sleeping children. Responding officers found him heavily intoxicated. The petition further alleged a pattern of domestic violence in the home and excessive alcohol consumption. At an adjudicatory hearing in January 2025, the father stipulated to all allegations in the petition, and the circuit court adjudicated him as having abused and neglected all four children.
The circuit court granted the father a post-adjudicatory improvement period in February 2025, requiring him to maintain sobriety, obtain suitable housing and employment, and participate in substance abuse treatment and supervised visitation. Within weeks, the father was incarcerated on five counts of harassment in violation of a protective order. After his release on bond, he tested positive for cocaine, was placed on home confinement, then violated those terms by testing positive for alcohol and returned to jail. He also left a substance abuse program before completing treatment. At the June 2025 hearing on the DHS’s motion to revoke the improvement period, the father admitted to these failures, and the court terminated his improvement period for noncompliance — at which point he yelled obscenities and was removed from the courtroom.
At the dispositional hearing in August 2025, the DHS recommended termination of parental rights and opposed post-termination visitation, citing the father’s persistent noncompliance and the risk that continued contact would delay the children’s permanency. The father, who had recently enrolled in a residential substance abuse program and acknowledged being a chronic alcoholic, requested a post-dispositional improvement period or, alternatively, post-termination visitation. The circuit court terminated his parental and custodial rights to all four children, finding no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future, and denied post-termination visitation as not in the children’s best interests.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order in a unanimous memorandum decision. On the question of a post-dispositional improvement period, the court held that the father failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances as required under West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(3)(D) — the statutory prerequisite for such relief. Although the father had recently enrolled in substance abuse treatment, that alone did not establish the required showing, particularly in light of his comprehensive failure to comply with the terms of his prior improvement period. The court also noted that no legal authority permits a parent to move to reinstate a previously terminated improvement period.
On the denial of post-termination visitation, the court held that the circuit court’s analysis was sufficient and its conclusion well-supported. Under West Virginia Rule of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings 15(b)(2)(A) and the standard articulated in In re Christina L., 194 W. Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (1995), post-termination visitation may be granted only where it would not be detrimental to the children’s well-being and is affirmatively in their best interests. The circuit court permissibly credited the DHS worker’s testimony that resuming contact would delay permanency and was not in the children’s best interests, and it properly considered both the violent nature of the original abuse and the father’s ongoing criminal conduct throughout the proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A parent seeking a post-dispositional improvement period under W. Va. Code § 49-4-610(3)(D) must affirmatively demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances and a likelihood of full participation — recent enrollment in treatment shortly before disposition, standing alone, is insufficient where the parent failed to comply with a prior improvement period.
- No West Virginia authority permits a parent to move to reinstate an improvement period that has already been revoked for noncompliance.
- In denying post-termination visitation, a circuit court may rely on a DHS worker’s recommendation against it, the absence of negative signs in children when visitation ceased, the violent nature of the original abuse, and the parent’s pattern of criminal conduct during proceedings — and an appellate court will not reweigh that evidence.
- The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals provisionally amended Rule 15(b) of the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings on May 9, 2025, to more clearly articulate standards for post-termination visitation consideration.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the high bar parents face when seeking additional improvement periods after noncompliance has already led to revocation of a prior one. Courts will not treat late-stage participation in treatment as a substantial change in circumstances absent a more comprehensive showing of turnaround — particularly where the parent’s conduct throughout the proceedings has been marked by repeated violations of court orders, criminal activity, and continued substance abuse.
The case also illustrates how courts weigh post-termination visitation requests when children are on a permanency track toward adoption. Even where a parent-child bond exists, courts may deny visitation if continuing contact would disrupt permanency planning and the children have shown no adverse effects from the cessation of visits. Practitioners in West Virginia child welfare cases should also take note of the court’s reference to the May 2025 provisional amendment to Rule 15(b), which signals evolving procedural standards in this area.