Background
Mother K.F. appealed the Circuit Court of Marshall County’s April 2025 order terminating her parental rights to two children, W.S. (age 13) and A.P. (age 15). The Department of Human Services filed an abuse and neglect petition in September 2023, alleging that the mother abused drugs and alcohol, failed to provide shelter and supervision, abandoned W.S., and physically abused A.P. The allegations included facts that the mother had not seen W.S. in five or six years and had not provided mental or financial support; W.S. was living with his father and later a cousin when the father could no longer provide care. A.P. had lived with her maternal grandmother for approximately seven years.
The mother pled guilty to domestic assault against A.P. in March 2023 after an incident involving a cigarette burn. A protective order was subsequently issued preventing contact between the mother and A.P. At the adjudicatory hearing in October 2024, the mother admitted to the guilty plea but characterized the burn as accidental, claiming she was attempting to dispose of a cigarette when it “flipped” onto A.P. The mother testified she had consumed “a few beers” at the time and suggested A.P. lied because she was angry about being denied a cigarette. When offered a drug screen during the hearing, the mother declined to participate.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s termination of parental rights on all grounds. Regarding the adjudication, the court found the Department of Human Services met its burden of clear and convincing evidence. The evidence demonstrated that the mother had not provided shelter or supervision to the children for years; she testified she did not know where W.S. was living and was prohibited from contacting A.P. The court noted that while the mother argued the cigarette incident “does not rise to the level of domestic violence,” she had been criminally convicted of domestic assault based on that conduct. The court emphasized that the mother was adjudicated on several independent grounds beyond the assault, and the circuit court properly weighed the credibility of conflicting testimony, with W.S.’s father and a CPS worker contradicting the mother’s claims about financial assistance and involvement in the children’s lives.
On the improvement period issue, the court affirmed denial of the mother’s motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period, holding that although a parent must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that they are likely to fully participate, the circuit court retains discretion to refuse an improvement period when no improvement is likely. The court explained that “failure to acknowledge the existence of the problem . . . results in making the problem untreatable and in making an improvement period an exercise in futility at the child’s expense.” The mother refused to acknowledge her conduct constituted abuse and neglect, stating she “never mistreated” W.S. and that the assault on A.P. was “in the past.” She had failed to participate in DHS services for over a year, including drug and alcohol screens. Although she attended one parenting class, she was dropped after missing a single session. When her treatment team recommended inpatient rehabilitation for alcohol abuse (noting she was in liver failure and consuming four beers daily), she refused, claiming she now drinks only “like, half a beer.”
Finally, the court affirmed termination of parental rights, finding no reasonable likelihood the mother could substantially correct the abuse and neglect conditions in the near future. The mother had demonstrated “an inadequate capacity to solve the problems of abuse or neglect on [her] own or with help” by failing to avail herself of any DHS services and refusing the recommended inpatient treatment program. The court found termination was necessary for the children’s welfare, as they required continuity of care and a stable permanent home.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s refusal to acknowledge abuse or neglect makes an improvement period legally futile and supports its denial, even if the parent demonstrates minimal compliance with services.
- Failure to participate in offered services—including therapeutic treatment, parenting classes, and substance abuse screening—over an extended period supports findings that the parent lacks capacity to correct abuse conditions.
- A parent’s refusal of court-recommended inpatient treatment, particularly when treatment is medically necessary, evidences inadequate capacity to remedy the conditions underlying termination.
- Criminal convictions for domestic assault may be properly considered in child abuse and neglect proceedings; a parent’s characterization of the conduct as “accidental” does not override the conviction or preclude termination.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that West Virginia family courts will not grant improvement periods to parents who deny the existence or severity of their abusive or neglectful conduct, even when the parent takes some affirmative steps toward rehabilitation. The court’s emphasis on the parent’s refusal to acknowledge the problem as making improvement “an exercise in futility at the child’s expense” establishes a threshold requirement: acknowledging wrongdoing is a prerequisite to a meaningful opportunity to rehabilitate. This standard protects children from prolonged uncertainty while parents pursue improvement periods they do not meaningfully engage in.
The decision also underscores that termination of parental rights will be upheld when a parent actively refuses services and treatment over an extended timeline, particularly when the refusal involves medical recommendations for substance abuse treatment. The mother’s denial that she had an alcohol problem, combined with her factually implausible claim that her consumption had dropped from four beers daily to half a beer, demonstrated to the court that she lacked insight into her condition. The court’s deference to the circuit court’s credibility assessments and factual findings—particularly in weighing the mother’s testimony against corroborating evidence from the father and caseworkers—reflects the appellate standard applied in these cases and suggests termination decisions will rarely be overturned absent clear error.