Background
In April 2023, the West Virginia Department of Human Services filed an abuse and neglect petition against Mother V.M. concerning her daughter M.D., alleging failure to provide suitable housing—M.D. had disclosed frequent homelessness, exposure to substance abuse, and physical abuse by the mother’s ex-boyfriend. After M.D.’s half-siblings D.M. and A.M. made similar disclosures, DHS amended the petition to include them, but the amended petition contained no specific abuse or neglect allegations as to those two children—it listed only their names and current custody arrangements.
At the adjudicatory hearing in March 2024, the mother stipulated to neglecting M.D. due to unsuitable housing. The circuit court accepted the stipulation and adjudicated her as a neglectful parent of M.D. but made no adjudicatory findings regarding D.M. and A.M. The court held the mother’s motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period in abeyance, expressly conditioning any grant on her separating from a registered sex offender with whom she was residing. Throughout the proceedings the mother refused to leave that relationship, citing financial reasons, though she acknowledged on cross-examination that affordability was not actually the obstacle.
At a January 2025 dispositional hearing, DHS presented evidence that the mother had continued living with the registered sex offender despite nearly twenty-two months of warnings that reunification required separation. The circuit court denied the improvement period, found no reasonable likelihood the conditions of neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future, and terminated the mother’s parental rights to all three children. The mother appealed, challenging both the adjudication of D.M. and A.M. and the termination of her rights to all three children.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed termination of parental rights as to M.D. The mother stipulated to neglecting M.D., never rectified the unsuitable-housing condition during twenty-two months of proceedings, and expressly chose to remain with the registered sex offender. That record provided ample basis for the circuit court’s findings under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) that there was no reasonable likelihood the neglect could be substantially corrected and that termination was necessary for M.D.’s welfare.
As to D.M. and A.M., the court vacated the termination order and remanded. West Virginia Code § 49-4-601(b) requires an abuse and neglect petition to allege specific conduct—including time, place, and the statutory basis for the neglect or abuse charge—to protect a parent’s due process right to notice and an opportunity to be heard. The amended petition as to D.M. and A.M. contained no such allegations. Because neglect of one child cannot be automatically imputed to siblings (unlike abuse, where the statute expressly permits imputation), the mother’s stipulation regarding M.D. could not serve as an adjudication of neglect of D.M. and A.M. The circuit court further made no specific adjudicatory findings as to those children, which is a statutory prerequisite to proceeding to disposition.
Although the mother had not objected below—and thus technically waived the issue—the court exercised its authority to review unpreserved errors in abuse and neglect cases where the circuit court’s error constituted a substantial frustration or disregard of the governing statutes and rules. The court directed that on remand DHS be permitted to file a proper amended petition and that a new adjudicatory hearing be held.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s continued cohabitation with a registered sex offender, in defiance of explicit court warnings over nearly two years, can support a finding of no reasonable likelihood of correction and justify termination of parental rights.
- An amended abuse and neglect petition must contain specific factual allegations—time, place, and statutory basis—for each child named; listing a child’s name and custody arrangement without substantive allegations is constitutionally and statutorily insufficient.
- Under West Virginia law, a finding of neglect as to one child cannot be automatically imputed to that child’s siblings; each child requires independent adjudicatory findings before the case can proceed to disposition.
- Even where a parent waives a procedural objection by failing to raise it below, West Virginia appellate courts may review the error in abuse and neglect cases if the circuit court substantially disregarded the applicable statutes and rules.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the due process floor that abuse and neglect petitions must clear before a court may terminate parental rights. Practitioners representing DHS or other child-welfare agencies should ensure that amended petitions include case-specific factual allegations for every child added, and that courts make individualized adjudicatory findings as to each child before moving to disposition. A deficient petition is not cured by a co-sibling’s stipulation or by evidence presented at a later hearing.
For defense counsel, the case illustrates that appellate courts in West Virginia retain discretion to correct fundamental procedural failures in abuse and neglect proceedings even when the parent failed to object at trial—a meaningful safety valve given the permanency stakes involved. At the same time, the affirmance as to M.D. demonstrates that a parent’s persistent, knowing refusal to address the specific condition giving rise to neglect—even when alternatives are offered—will ordinarily doom any challenge to termination.