Background
The case arose in November 2024 when the West Virginia Department of Human Services filed a petition shortly after N.W.’s birth, alleging that the child’s mother tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine at delivery. The mother passed away in December 2024. Paternity testing subsequently identified S.R. as the father, and the DHS amended the petition in April 2025 to allege that he abused illegal drugs, supplied drugs to the mother during her pregnancy, and perpetrated domestic violence against her. N.W. was born prematurely and drug affected.
At an adjudicatory hearing in April 2025, S.R. admitted testing positive for methamphetamine and stipulated that his controlled substance use negatively affected his ability to parent. The Circuit Court of Kanawha County adjudicated him as an abusive and neglectful parent and ordered him to enroll in substance abuse treatment, undergo a drug and alcohol assessment, and participate in parenting and adult life skills classes. His motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period was held in abeyance pending a later dispositional hearing.
By the June 2025 dispositional hearing, a DHS worker testified that S.R. had not participated in the ordered parenting and life skills classes, had missed more than fifteen drug screens (presumed positive under applicable standards), and had tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine in May 2025. S.R. disputed the positive result as a “false positive,” denied any addiction, and stated that employment was his treatment. He also denied remembering his prior stipulation at adjudication that substance abuse had impaired his parenting.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s August 8, 2025, order denying S.R.’s motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period and terminating his parental rights. Applying an abuse of discretion standard, the court held that the circuit court acted within its discretion in finding that S.R. had not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence — as required by West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(2)(B) — that he was likely to fully participate in an improvement period.
The court emphasized that S.R.’s denial of his substance abuse problem, despite his own prior stipulation, rendered the problem effectively untreatable. Citing In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (2013), the court reaffirmed that a parent’s failure to acknowledge the existence of a problem makes it untreatable and turns any improvement period into an exercise in futility at the child’s expense. The court also applied the two-fold inquiry recognized in In re S.S., 928 S.E.2d 577 (2026), confirming that an improvement period request requires both statutory compliance and a best-interests analysis.
Finding no abuse of discretion in the denial of the improvement period, and no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future, the court further upheld the termination of parental rights as in N.W.’s best interests given her young age and need for permanency. The decision was unanimous.
Key Takeaways
- A parent seeking a post-adjudicatory improvement period under W. Va. Code § 49-4-610(2)(B) must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence a likelihood of full participation; denial is within the circuit court’s discretion when that showing is not made.
- A parent’s refusal to acknowledge a substance abuse problem — even after stipulating to it at adjudication — supports a finding that the problem is untreatable and that an improvement period would be futile.
- West Virginia courts apply a two-part test for improvement period requests: statutory compliance and the child’s best interests; a young child’s need for permanency weighs heavily against granting an improvement period where rehabilitation is unlikely.
- Missed drug screens are presumed positive under West Virginia abuse and neglect proceedings, and a pattern of missed screens combined with a confirmed positive can support termination even when the parent contests the results.
Why It Matters
This memorandum decision reinforces the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals’ consistent approach to parental improvement periods in substance abuse cases: acknowledgment of the problem is a prerequisite to any realistic prospect of rehabilitation, and courts need not grant parents a formal improvement period when the record demonstrates they are unwilling to engage with treatment. Practitioners representing parents in abuse and neglect proceedings should take note that minimizing or recanting prior admissions at disposition can be fatal to an improvement period request.
The decision also illustrates how the child’s age and permanency needs function as an independent limiting principle. Even where a parent’s prospects might be uncertain rather than hopeless, a very young child’s developmental interest in timely permanency can tip the balance against granting additional time. With N.W.’s permanency plan set for adoption, the ruling clears the way for a stable placement for a child who has never known a drug-free home environment.