Denial Equals Non-Compliance: West Virginia Supreme Court Re-Affirms that A Parent’s Failure to Acknowledge Abuse Makes Conditions “Uncorrectable”
(Commentary on In re B.B., A.B., K.B., & E.P., No. 24-298, July 30 2025)

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, in In re B.B., A.B., K.B., and E.P., addressed whether a father’s parental rights could be terminated when—despite being granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period—he failed to complete key services and, more importantly, persistently denied responsibility for the underlying abuse and neglect. Petitioner-Father D.B. argued that the circuit court erroneously concluded he had not completed his improvement period, that it relied on un-adjudicated conduct, and that he was denied due process at various junctures.

The Court affirmed the circuit court’s April 23 2024 order terminating D.B.’s rights to his four children, emphasizing that acknowledgment of abusive conduct is an indispensable component of “successful” improvement periods. The decision thus solidifies, and slightly sharpens, prior West Virginia jurisprudence that treats outright denial of abuse as rendering conditions of neglect “uncorrectable” under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6).

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court reviewed factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.
• Petitioner’s due-process claim about the May 2023 extension hearing failed because the record showed his improvement period was extended and services continued.
• Substantial evidence demonstrated Petitioner did not comply with core terms (domestic-violence classes, counseling, sobriety).
• Even full technical compliance would not suffice because Petitioner’s ongoing denial rendered the abuse “untreatable.”
• On that basis, the Court affirmed termination pursuant to § 49-4-604(c)(6).
• Arguments that the circuit court relied on un-adjudicated allegations or violated confrontation rights with respect to the guardian’s report were rejected.

3. Detailed Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89 (2011) – Standard of review framework (clear error for facts; de novo for law).
2. In re Carlita B., 185 W. Va. 613 (1991) – Courts must evaluate performance at the end of an improvement period to decide whether “sufficient improvement” warrants reunification.
   “The circuit court must… determine whether sufficient improvement has been made in the context of all the circumstances.”
3. In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44 (2013) – Improvement periods are for behavioral modification; acknowledgment of abuse is a prerequisite to rehabilitation. Extensively quoted by the Court to ground the “denial = untreatable” principle.
4. In re Charity H., 215 W. Va. 208 (2004) – Failure to recognize the problem makes it untreatable; cited in tandem with Timber M.
5. W. Va. Code § 49-4-610(4)(A) – Parent is responsible for initiation and completion of improvement period services.
6. W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) – Statutory basis for termination when no reasonable likelihood of correction exists and termination is necessary for the child’s welfare.
7. Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse & Neglect Proceedings, Appendix A § (D)(8) – Guardian ad litem precluded from testifying to contents of written report.

Together, these authorities furnished a cohesive doctrinal scaffold: (i) courts must assess overall progress, not mechanical box-checking (Carlita B.); (ii) denial of abuse is cardinal evidence that progress is illusory (Timber M., Charity H.); and (iii) once those conditions exist, termination is statutorily permissible (§ 49-4-604(c)(6)).

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Due-Process/Egalitarian Claims. Petitioner alleged unequal treatment because only the mother’s extension was memorialized in the written order. The Court found oral extension valid; moreover, continuous service provision demonstrated no prejudice.
2. Completion of the Improvement Period. • Petitioner conceded non-participation in critical services.
   • Regular marijuana use contradicted the sobriety requirement.
   • § 49-4-610(4)(A) explicitly places responsibility on the parent, negating the shift-blame argument.
3. Causation & Denial. The Court adopted the Timber M./Charity H. line: without recognition of harm, remediation is impossible. Petitioner’s self-assessment (“I’m an 8-out-of-10 parent who just spoils my kids”) and blaming of the mother confirmed a lack of insight.
4. Best Interests & Statute. Once “no reasonable likelihood” is found, and termination serves children’s welfare, § 49-4-604(c)(6) directs—rather than merely permits—termination.
5. Alleged Reliance on Un-Adjudicated Conduct. The dispositional order relied on Petitioner’s own statements, not E.P.’s additional allegations. Hence due-process concerns were unfounded.

C. Potential Impact of the Judgment

• Reinforcement of the “Acknowledgment Requirement.” While the rule is not new, this decision reiterates it in emphatic terms and applies it to a scenario where some service participation occurred. Practitioners should counsel clients that genuine acceptance of responsibility is necessary, not merely attendance.
• Oral Extensions & Record-Keeping. The Court implicitly validated oral rulings that are later imperfectly documented. Circuit courts may nonetheless choose to avoid appellate friction by ensuring written orders reflect all parties’ extensions.
• Guardian Ad Litem Testimony Parameters. By upholding § (D)(8) of Appendix A, the Court clarifies that a guardian’s written report shields them from being called as a witness, preserving the “dual role” doctrine (advocate + fact investigator) without exposing them to cross-examination.
• Future Litigation Strategy. Defense counsel in abuse/neglect cases should: (a) press for early and explicit acknowledgment narratives; (b) document proactive client efforts; and (c) prepare to show insight rather than rote compliance.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Improvement Period

A court-monitored, time-limited phase in which the parent must complete services (drug testing, classes, therapy) designed to fix the problems that led to abuse findings. Successful completion can pave the way for reunification.

Adjudication vs. Disposition

Adjudication: Phase where the court determines whether abuse or neglect occurred.
Disposition: Phase where the court decides what to do—terminate rights, grant custody, etc.—based on the facts proven at adjudication and the parent’s progress.

No Reasonable Likelihood of Correction

A statutory standard (§ 49-4-604) meaning that, given the parent’s current behavior, prognosis, and attitude, the court sees no realistic chance that conditions can improve in the near future.

Guardian ad Litem (GAL)

A lawyer appointed to represent the best interests of the child, independent of either parent or the State. In West Virginia abuse/neglect proceedings, the GAL files written reports but is not a typical witness.

5. Conclusion

In re B.B. strengthens a cardinal theme in West Virginia child-protection jurisprudence: behavioral change without accountability is illusory. The Supreme Court’s affirmation underscores that (1) improvement periods are parent-initiated and parent-driven, (2) denial of wrongdoing is fatal to reunification prospects, and (3) courts may terminate parental rights even when a parent has “checked boxes” but not internalized responsibility. Practically, the decision provides clear guidance to circuit courts and practitioners alike: insight is indispensable, and mere formal compliance will not satisfy the statutory mandate to protect children’s welfare.