Background
In January 2025, the West Virginia Department of Human Services filed a neglect petition after a newborn tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine at birth. The petition alleged that the mother had admitted to drug use during pregnancy and that the father’s substance abuse impaired his parenting. When Child Protective Services sought to implement a safety plan, the father became hostile and made threats. Although he claimed three years of sobriety, his own mother reported to CPS that he had an extensive history of substance abuse and anger management issues. At the preliminary hearing, the circuit court ordered the father to participate in supervised visits, parenting classes, adult life skills education, and random drug screens.
At an adjudicatory hearing in March 2025, the father stipulated to neglecting the child as a result of his substance abuse, and the court adjudicated him accordingly. The court directed the DHS to continue providing services, including substance abuse treatment, which the father agreed to attend. However, over the ensuing weeks leading up to the dispositional hearing, the father failed to submit to drug screens for approximately one month, tested positive for methamphetamine on his last screen, and never visited the child during the entire course of the proceedings due to his screening failures.
The father also participated in an incident in which he and the mother verbally accosted the child’s relative caregiver at her home, forcing the child’s removal from that placement and severing a significant bond the child had developed there. Despite his earlier commitment to treatment, the father waited until roughly one week before the dispositional hearing to enroll—one day after the placement disruption incident and shortly after receiving an eviction notice. At the dispositional hearing, the father claimed his delayed enrollment was caused by insurance requirements, stating he intentionally used THC and methamphetamine to fail a drug test so his insurance would cover inpatient treatment. He also denied that his own substance abuse was the reason for the child’s removal, attributing it solely to the mother.
The Court’s Holding
The circuit court denied the father’s motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period, finding he had not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that he was likely to fully participate, as required by West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(2)(B). The court cited his failure to comply with drug screening, refusal of offered transportation and inpatient services, role in disrupting the child’s placement, threats against the guardian ad litem, and—critically—his refusal to accept responsibility for his conduct. Finding no reasonable likelihood that the father could substantially correct the conditions of neglect and that the child’s best interests required it, the circuit court terminated his parental rights. The mother’s rights were also terminated, and the permanency plan is adoption in the child’s current placement.
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed unanimously, reviewing the denial of the improvement period under an abuse of discretion standard. The court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion. While the father pointed to his last-minute enrollment in substance abuse treatment as evidence of likely participation, the court found that he ignored substantial evidence of overall noncompliance. Applying the principle from In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (2013), the court emphasized that a parent’s failure to acknowledge the existence of the problem renders it untreatable and makes an improvement period an exercise in futility at the child’s expense.
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; last-minute enrollment in treatment, standing alone, is insufficient when the overall record reflects persistent noncompliance.
- A parent’s failure to acknowledge responsibility for the conditions of neglect is independently sufficient to support denial of an improvement period, as it renders the underlying problem untreatable.
- Circuit courts reviewing improvement period motions filed on the eve of disposition may properly weigh the timing and circumstances of a parent’s belated service engagement as evidence of the likelihood—or lack thereof—of genuine future compliance.
- Threats against a guardian ad litem and conduct that disrupts a child’s stable placement are relevant factors a court may consider when assessing a parent’s fitness for an improvement period and when determining the child’s best interests.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces West Virginia’s well-established principle that an improvement period is not a procedural entitlement but a meaningful opportunity granted only when a parent demonstrates genuine readiness to engage. Courts and practitioners should note that the analysis is holistic: a parent cannot satisfy the “likely to fully participate” standard by pointing to isolated positive steps while a broader record of noncompliance, denial, and disruptive conduct remains unaddressed. The opinion also illustrates the weight courts place on a parent’s acceptance of responsibility—without it, even active treatment participation may be insufficient to justify extending proceedings at a young child’s expense.
For child welfare practitioners, the case underscores that a parent’s own statements at a dispositional hearing can be dispositive. The father’s claim that his child was removed due to the mother’s drug use—not his own—directly contradicted his earlier stipulation to neglect based on substance abuse, and the court treated that inconsistency as strong evidence that an improvement period would be futile. Attorneys advising parents in abuse and neglect proceedings should counsel clients that credibility and candor at disposition carry significant consequences for the viability of any request for additional time to remedy conditions of neglect.