Affirming the Substantial Compliance Standard for Post-Adjudicatory Improvement Periods in Parental Rights Termination

Introduction

This memorandum decision arises from the appeal of Father A.W. (“the petitioner”) following the Circuit Court of Clay County’s order terminating his parental rights to his two infant children, W.H. and M.H. The West Virginia Department of Human Services (“DHS”) initiated proceedings in May 2023 based on allegations that both parents used controlled substances to the detriment of their parenting abilities and that they failed to provide a safe, drug-free home. After amendment, the petition included multiple positive drug tests by the petitioner. The circuit court conducted an adjudicatory hearing, granted the petitioner a post-adjudicatory improvement period, and later, at a dispositional hearing, found no reasonable likelihood of remediation and terminated paternal rights. The petitioner appealed the denial of an improvement-period extension, the termination order itself, and the refusal of post-termination visitation. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Appeals issued a memorandum decision on May 6, 2025, affirming the circuit court’s April 16, 2024, termination order. Key holdings include:

The petitioner failed to achieve substantial compliance with the terms of his post-adjudicatory improvement period, as required by West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(6).
Because the petitioner continued to use controlled substances, did not obtain suitable housing or verifiable employment, and refused drug treatment, there was no reasonable likelihood of correcting the conditions of neglect or abuse in the near future (W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6)).
Termination of the petitioner’s parental rights was necessary for the children’s welfare, and no less drastic alternative existed.
The petitioner was not entitled to any post-termination visitation given his ongoing drug use, failure to comply with court orders, and lack of contact or bond–preserving behavior during the proceedings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011): Established that findings of fact in abuse and neglect proceedings are reviewed for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.
In re Katie S., 198 W. Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996): Held that a circuit court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to extend an improvement period when a parent fails to comply with its terms.
In re Christina L., 194 W. Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (1995), Syl. Pt. 5: Guides courts to consider a child’s best interests and the existence of an emotional bond before awarding post-termination visitation.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court of Appeals adopted the circuit court’s factual findings and legal rationale:

Improvement Period Standard: Under W. Va. Code § 49-4-610(6), an extension is available only if the parent substantially complied with all terms. The petitioner’s own admissions, combined with testimony of repeated positive drug tests, inadequate housing and employment, and refusal of treatment, negated any showing of substantial compliance.
No Reasonable Likelihood of Remediation: The court applied W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) and (d)(1), finding the petitioner’s habitual drug use had seriously impaired his parenting abilities and that he failed to follow through on recommended treatment. Those statutory criteria justified termination for the children’s safety and welfare.
Post-Termination Visitation: Even acknowledging the petitioner’s claim of a pre-existing bond with one child, the court, citing In re Christina L., required clear evidence that visitation would not harm the children. Ongoing drug use, complete absence of visitation for eight months, and no clean screens foreclosed any such finding.

Impact

This decision reaffirms and clarifies that:

Circuit courts must strictly enforce the substantial compliance threshold before extending improvement periods.
Continued substance abuse and noncompliance with court-ordered services will support a finding of no reasonable likelihood of correcting neglect or abuse.
Post-termination visitation is not an automatic entitlement; courts must consider current parent behavior, not merely historical bonds.

Future litigants and courts in West Virginia will look to In re W.H. and M.H. as a reaffirmation of these rigorous standards in abuse and neglect proceedings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Adjudicatory Hearing: A court proceeding to decide if allegations of abuse or neglect are proven. Here, the father stipulated to all allegations and was adjudicated as an abusing parent.
Improvement Period: A court-supervised time frame during which a parent must comply with specific requirements (e.g., drug treatment, housing, employment) to regain and preserve parental rights.
Substantial Compliance: Meeting most, if not all, requirements of an improvement period in a meaningful way. “Somewhat” complying is legally insufficient for an extension.
No Reasonable Likelihood Standard: The statutory benchmark (W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6)) for terminating parental rights when the conditions causing neglect or abuse are unlikely to be corrected soon.
Post-Termination Visitation: Contact after parental rights have ended. Courts weigh the child’s best interests and whether ongoing contact would benefit or harm the child.

Conclusion

In re W.H. and M.H. reinforces West Virginia’s statutory scheme prioritizing children’s safety by requiring strict adherence to improvement period terms. The Supreme Court of Appeals confirmed that partial or “somewhat” compliance cannot justify extensions, that persistent substance abuse and failure to follow court orders establish no reasonable likelihood of remediation, and that post-termination visitation demands objective proof of benefit to the child. This decision will guide lower courts in the consistent application of West Virginia Code §§ 49-4-604 and 49-4-610 and underscore the imperative of rigorous enforcement of improvement period requirements in abuse and neglect proceedings.