Belated, Insincere Acknowledgment Is Insufficient for an Improvement Period; Termination May Proceed Even When the Other Parent Is Fit — In re S.B., H.B., D.B., and N.B.

Introduction

This memorandum decision from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirms the Circuit Court of Kanawha County’s termination of the parental rights of J.B. (Petitioner Mother) to four minor children: S.B., H.B., D.B., and N.B. The case arises from an abuse and neglect petition alleging repeated physical abuse and domestic violence in the children’s presence. On appeal, the mother argued two principal errors: (1) denial of her motions for an improvement period, and (2) termination without employing a less restrictive alternative, particularly given that the children’s permanency plan contemplated placement with their father at one point.

The Supreme Court, applying familiar standards, held that the circuit court acted within its discretion to deny an improvement period where the mother would not credibly acknowledge the abuse and where late-stage admissions were belated, insincere, and inconsistent with the record. The Court also rejected the “least restrictive alternative” argument, reiterating that termination of one parent’s rights may be appropriate even if the other parent is fit and remains intact, and that the presence of a fit parent does not immunize the abusing parent from termination when no improvement is expected.

Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court affirmed the July 15, 2024 dispositional order terminating Petitioner Mother’s parental rights. Key points:

The circuit court did not err in denying post-adjudicatory and post-dispositional improvement periods because the mother failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that she was likely to fully participate, principally due to her persistent refusal to acknowledge the abuse (W. Va. Code § 49-4-610(2)(B), (3)(B)).
Late, inconsistent admissions at disposition were properly deemed “belated, insincere, and unpersuasive,” and the appellate court would not second-guess the trial court’s credibility findings (Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C.).
Termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence that there was no reasonable likelihood the abusive conditions could be substantially corrected in the near future and that termination was necessary for the children’s welfare (W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6)).
Termination of the mother’s parental rights was permissible even though the father’s rights initially remained intact; a fit nonabusing parent does not entitle the abusing parent to retain rights (In re Emily).

Accordingly, the Court affirmed without oral argument under Rule 21, determining that a memorandum decision was appropriate.

Factual and Procedural Background

Initial petition and preliminary hearing (April–May 2023): DHS alleged physical abuse (slapping, grabbing, throwing, hitting) and domestic violence in the children’s presence. A CPS worker observed “fingerprint” bruises on three of the children inconsistent with accidental injury.
Psychological evaluation (July 2023): The evaluator documented a high level of defensiveness, a tendency to present favorably, limited recognition of parental failure, and a “guarded to poor” prognosis for improved parenting.
Adjudication (culminating November 2023): The mother attempted to stipulate only to “excessive spanking,” denying other abuse. The court rejected the stipulation as insufficient acknowledgment. CPS evidence described injuries and a child’s statement that the mother “was mean.” The court adjudicated abuse and neglect and denied a post-adjudicatory improvement period for lack of acknowledgment and unlikely full participation.
Disposition (March–May 2024): The mother first denied slapping, then admitted to slapping two children under judicial questioning. The court found her eleventh-hour admissions unpersuasive, concluded she failed to benefit from services, and determined no reasonable likelihood of correction in the near future. It terminated parental rights, emphasizing the children’s young ages and need for stable caretakers.
Father’s status: The father later relinquished his rights (Feb. 27, 2025). The permanency plan is adoption in the current placement.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011): Provides the standard of review: factual findings are reviewed for clear error; legal conclusions de novo. This benchmark framed the Supreme Court’s deference to the circuit court’s credibility and factual determinations.
In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (2013), quoting In re Charity H., 215 W. Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (2004): Establishes that a parent must first acknowledge the abuse/neglect to remedy it; without acknowledgment, an improvement period is an “exercise in futility at the child’s expense.” The Court leaned on Timber M./Charity H. to conclude the mother’s refusal to genuinely acknowledge the abuse defeated her eligibility for an improvement period.
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W. Va. 381, 497 S.E.2d 531 (1997): Appellate courts do not second-guess trial-level credibility determinations. This foreclosed the mother’s request for the Supreme Court to credit her testimony about her efforts and partial admissions.
In re Tonjia M., 212 W. Va. 443, 573 S.E.2d 354 (2002): Circuit courts may refuse an improvement period when no improvement is likely. This supported the trial court’s denial based on the mother’s lack of acknowledgment and failure to benefit from services.
In re Emily, 208 W. Va. 325, 540 S.E.2d 542 (2000): Confirms that one parent’s rights may be terminated while leaving the nonabusing parent’s rights intact, and the mere presence of a fit parent does not automatically entitle the abusing parent to retain rights. The Court used Emily to reject the least-restrictive-alternative argument premised on the father’s fitness/reunification plan.

Legal Reasoning

1) Improvement Period: Burden, Acknowledgment, and Credibility

Under W. Va. Code § 49-4-610(2)(B) and (3)(B), the parent bears the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that they are likely to fully participate in a post-adjudicatory or post-dispositional improvement period. The Supreme Court agreed with the circuit court that the mother failed this showing because:

She consistently minimized or denied abuse, seeking to stipulate only to “excessive spanking” while disavowing other conduct, a partial acknowledgment the court deemed insufficient for adjudication by stipulation.
Her eventual admissions at disposition were inconsistent with earlier denials and with the evidentiary record (CPS observations of “fingerprint” bruises), and the court assessed them as “belated, insincere, and unpersuasive.”
Professional evaluation documented defensiveness and a “guarded to poor” prognosis for improved parenting.

Given Timber M./Charity H.’s acknowledgment principle, and Tonjia M.’s recognition that courts may deny improvement periods where no improvement is likely, the Supreme Court held there was no abuse of discretion in denying the motions for improvement periods. The mother’s appellate invitation to reweigh her credibility and intentions failed under Michael D.C.

2) Termination Standard: No Reasonable Likelihood and Necessity for Welfare

Under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6), termination is authorized when there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect can be substantially corrected in the near future and termination is necessary for the child’s welfare. The circuit court’s findings, affirmed on appeal, included:

Failure to benefit from services despite participation.
Persistent minimization of violence and failure to credibly acknowledge abuse until the “eleventh hour,” undermining the feasibility of remedial efforts.
The children’s young ages and need for continuity of caretaking, supporting the welfare necessity of permanency.

The Court concluded that the DHS carried its burden with clear and convincing evidence and refused to substitute its own credibility judgments for the trial court’s.

3) Least Restrictive Alternative and the Fit Parent

Responding to the argument that termination was not the least restrictive alternative, especially when the children’s permanency plan contemplated reunification with their father, the Court relied on In re Emily to emphasize:

Termination of one parent’s rights is permissible while the nonabusing parent’s rights remain intact if the circumstances warrant.
The existence of a fit parent does not entitle the other parent to maintain parental rights where abuse has occurred and no improvement is expected.

Thus, even assuming the father’s fitness at relevant times, termination of the mother’s parental rights remained appropriate because the statutory criteria under § 49-4-604(c)(6) were satisfied. The father’s later relinquishment underscores, but did not drive, the legal analysis; the dispositive question remained whether, as to the mother, termination was necessary and the conditions were not reasonably correctable.

Impact and Practical Significance

On improvement period practice: The decision sharpens the practical requirement that acknowledgment be credible, consistent, and timely. Courts may view late, tactical admissions—especially those contradicted by prior denials and record evidence—as insufficient to meet the burden for an improvement period.
On trial-level credibility findings: The Supreme Court reiterates robust deference to circuit courts’ demeanor-based credibility calls, signaling that appeals premised on reweighing testimony face a high bar.
On “least restrictive alternative” arguments: Parents cannot rely on a fit co-parent to avoid termination. Emily remains a firm foundation for terminating one parent’s rights when statutory conditions are met, regardless of the other parent’s status.
On permanency and timing: The opinion underscores the statutory emphasis on young children’s need for stability and continuity. Delays caused by non-acknowledgment or equivocation will not be indulged where they frustrate timely permanency.
On evidentiary development: Psychological evaluations documenting defensiveness and poor prognosis, coupled with specific physical evidence (e.g., patterned “fingerprint” bruises) and credible CPS testimony, remain decisive in both adjudication and disposition.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Improvement period: A court-approved window during which a parent must participate in services to correct conditions of abuse/neglect. The parent must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that they are likely to fully participate. Genuine acknowledgment of the problem is a prerequisite; without it, the process is considered futile.
Post-adjudicatory vs. post-dispositional improvement period: A post-adjudicatory period follows the court’s finding that abuse/neglect occurred; a post-dispositional period may be considered later in the case. The burden and the requirement of likely full participation apply to both.
Acknowledgment requirement: Courts require parents to candidly accept responsibility for abusive or neglectful conduct so that services can meaningfully address it. Minimization or denial undermines the efficacy of services.
Clear and convincing evidence: A high evidentiary standard requiring that the fact-finder be firmly convinced of the truth of the allegations; it is more than a mere preponderance but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
No reasonable likelihood of correction in the near future: A statutory finding that the conditions leading to abuse/neglect cannot be substantially remedied in a timeframe consistent with the children’s needs. Courts consider parental compliance, benefit from services, insight, and prognosis.
Least restrictive alternative: In abuse/neglect dispositional choices, courts aim to choose the least drastic remedy consistent with the children’s welfare. However, when statutory grounds are met—no reasonable likelihood of correction and necessity for welfare—termination is permitted, even if a less restrictive option exists in theory.
Deference to trial court on credibility: Appellate courts do not reweigh witness credibility. The circuit court, having observed witness demeanor and testimony firsthand, is best positioned to evaluate sincerity and reliability.
Memorandum decision (Rule 21): Allows the Supreme Court to resolve cases without oral argument where the law is clear and the record supports affirmance, often relying on established precedent.

Practice Pointers

For parents and counsel: Early, full, and consistent acknowledgment of abusive conduct is critical. Half-measures (e.g., admitting only “excessive spanking” while denying other abusive acts) may not suffice for adjudication by stipulation or for an improvement period.
For DHS and GALs: Develop a clear record connecting injuries, child statements, and parental explanations; document service participation and whether the parent benefitted; obtain and present expert evaluations that address defensiveness, insight, and prognosis.
For circuit courts: Make explicit credibility findings and tie them to statutory factors. If denying an improvement period, identify the reasons (e.g., lack of acknowledgment, poor prognosis, failure to benefit) and the evidentiary basis.
On “fit other parent” scenarios: Ensure the record reflects that termination of the abusing parent is based on their own conduct and the statutory criteria, independent of the nonabusing parent’s status or plan.

Conclusion

In re S.B., H.B., D.B., and N.B. reinforces two cornerstone principles in West Virginia abuse and neglect jurisprudence. First, a parent’s credible, timely acknowledgment of wrongdoing is a functional prerequisite to obtaining an improvement period; insincere, inconsistent, or last-minute admissions will not carry the burden of proving likely full participation. Second, termination of one parent’s rights may be necessary and proper notwithstanding the presence of a fit nonabusing parent; a fit co-parent is not a shield against termination when there is no reasonable likelihood of correction and the children’s welfare requires permanency.

The Court’s application of established precedent—Timber M./Charity H. on acknowledgment, Michael D.C. on credibility deference, Tonjia M. on improvement periods, and Emily on one-parent termination—provides a clear roadmap for future cases. The decision underscores the judiciary’s focus on child safety, permanency, and the practical efficacy of services, insisting that the path to reunification begins with genuine responsibility-taking by the parent.