Affirmation of “No Reasonable Likelihood” Standard in Parental Termination Under WV Code §49-4-604(c)(6)

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia issued a memorandum decision in In re K.C. and K.W., No. 24-355 (May 6, 2025), affirming the termination of a mother’s parental rights. This case arose from abuse and neglect petitions filed by the Department of Human Services (“DHS”) in October 2022, based on deplorable housing conditions, physical abuse by the mother’s boyfriend, and the mother’s involvement in fraudulent schemes. The petitioner, A.C., received court-ordered services—including supervised visitation, drug screening, domestic violence counseling, and a family unification plan letter for suitable housing—but failed to remedy the core problems over a seventeen-month period. On appeal, she argued that termination was premature because the underlying conditions could have been corrected within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court held that, under West Virginia Code §49-4-604(c)(6) and established precedent, a finding of “no reasonable likelihood” of correction justified terminating her parental rights.

Summary of the Judgment

1. The Circuit Court of Kanawha County adjudicated the children neglected in November 2022 due to uninhabitable housing conditions and allegations of physical abuse by the mother’s boyfriend, A.D.

2. A.C. received multiple services: parenting and life-skills classes, supervised visitation contingent on clean drug screens or a medical cannabis card, domestic violence counseling, and assistance obtaining housing.

3. A.D.’s continued contact with the children and A.C.’s residence with him led the court to deny an initial improvement period and to condition any custody restoration on separation from A.D.

4. Although A.C. later separated from A.D. and secured housing assistance, she relapsed—testing positive for marijuana—and was incarcerated on felony charges. She failed to participate in further services or obtain suitable housing after release.

5. At the dispositional hearing, the circuit court found no reasonable likelihood that A.C. could correct the neglectful conditions in the near future and that termination was necessary for the children’s welfare. It therefore terminated her parental rights.

6. The Supreme Court affirmed, citing the statutory standard in §49-4-604(c)(6) and precedent holding courts need not exhaust speculative possibilities of parental improvement when children’s welfare is at risk.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re Cecil T. (228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011)), Syllabus Point 1: Appellate review of abuse and neglect cases applies clear-error to factual findings and de novo review to legal conclusions. Syllabus Point 4: Courts need not pursue every speculative possibility of parental improvement when children’s welfare is endangered.

In re R.J.M. (164 W. Va. 496, 26 S.E.2d 114 (1980)): Emphasized that parental rights may be terminated without exhausting every theoretical improvement if real risk to the child persists.

These precedents guided the Supreme Court’s deference to the circuit court’s factual findings—A.C.’s sustained failure to correct neglectful conditions despite extensive assistance—and its legal conclusion that no reasonable likelihood existed for meaningful change.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis centered on West Virginia Code §49-4-604(c)(6), which authorizes termination when “there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected in the near future and, when necessary for the welfare of the child.” Subsection (d) defines “no reasonable likelihood” as the parent’s inadequate capacity to remedy neglect on their own or with help.

Key factual findings—unchallenged on appeal—were:

• Persistent uninhabitable housing despite a family unification plan and DHS assistance.
• Noncompliance with court-ordered services post-incarceration, including parenting classes and supervised visitation requirements.
• Ongoing substance use, evidenced by a positive marijuana screen.
• Continued involvement with an abusive boyfriend who posed a direct threat to the children.

Because these findings were not contested, the Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court properly applied §49-4-604(c)(6). It further held that, under Cecil T. and R.J.M., the court was not required to grant endless extensions or “speculative” improvement prospects when the record showed entrenched failures posing harm to the children.

Impact

This decision reinforces a rigorous application of the “no reasonable likelihood” standard in West Virginia parental termination cases. Future litigants will note that:

• Circuit courts may terminate parental rights as long as factual findings of non-compliance and risk are supported by clear evidence.
• Parents cannot rely indefinitely on court-ordered services; substantial, demonstrable progress is required within a reasonable timeframe.
• Maintaining or renewing risky relationships (e.g., with an abusive partner) will weigh heavily against a parent’s improvement prospects.
• Courts have discretion to deny improvement periods when a parent’s conduct undermines the case plan or endangers the children.

This ruling thus underscores the judiciary’s prioritization of children’s welfare over speculative hopes for parent rehabilitation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Adjudicatory Hearing: The first stage in a child abuse/neglect case where the court determines if allegations are proven.

Dispositional Hearing: The second stage, focusing on what interventions or outcomes (e.g., services, removal, termination) best serve the child’s interests.

Improvement Period: A court-ordered timeframe in which a parent must comply with a case plan to demonstrate their capacity to care for the child.

Family Unification Plan Letter: A document issued by DHS that often secures priority access to housing for families involved in child welfare cases.

“No Reasonable Likelihood” Standard: A statutory threshold under WV Code §49-4-604(c)(6) requiring termination when a parent cannot, within a reasonable time, fix the problems that led to neglect or abuse.

Conclusion

In In re K.C. and K.W., the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reaffirmed that persistent, uncorrected neglectful conditions—despite substantial agency support—justify termination of parental rights under WV Code §49-4-604(c)(6). By applying longstanding precedent, the Court underscored that children’s welfare cannot be subordinated to speculative parental improvement. This decision will serve as a guiding precedent, signaling that courts must balance opportunities for family reunification against the imperative to protect children from ongoing harm.