Case Plan Compliance as Determinative: Supreme Court of West Virginia Holds that Violation of Improvement Period Terms Justifies § 49-4-604(c)(5) Disposition without New Allegations

Introduction

In In re A.M. and M.C., No. 24-400 (July 30, 2025), the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia confronted a recurring tension in child abuse and neglect jurisprudence: whether a circuit court may rely on a parent’s failure to follow a court-approved family case plan and the terms of a post-adjudicatory improvement period to impose disposition under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(5) without amending the abuse petition or issuing new allegations.

Petitioner-Father J.M. challenged the circuit court’s order that removed the children from his custody (but stopped short of permanently terminating parental rights) after the court found he did not adequately comply with mental-health treatment, maintained prohibited contact with a former spouse whose parental rights had been terminated, and posted aggressive messages about the case on social media.

The Supreme Court affirmed, crystallising two central principles:

1. Once a parent stipulates to abuse/neglect and accepts an individualized case plan, the conduct regulated by that plan becomes part of the adjudicated conditions; therefore, non-compliance can be used to make dispositional findings under § 49-4-604(c)(5) without a separate petition.
2. The statutory duty that the parent “be responsible for the initiation and completion” of all improvement-period terms (§ 49-4-610(4)(A)) permits a circuit court to find present inability—and hence to remove custody—when that responsibility is not met, regardless of the parent’s professed willingness on the day of disposition.

Summary of the Judgment

• Standard of Review: Findings of fact—clear error; conclusions of law—de novo (Syl. Pt. 1, In re Cecil T.).
• Main Findings:
  • The father’s continued association with K.M., medication non-compliance, and social-media outbursts directly contravened the case-plan terms he acknowledged.
  • This non-compliance demonstrated a present inability to care for the children, satisfying the prerequisites of § 49-4-604(c)(5).
  • Because the improvement period had already expired by statute, the court had no obligation to extend or renew it.
  • The Department of Human Services (DHS) offered reasonable services, and the children’s best interests were served by remaining with their biological mother.
  • Disposition: The circuit court’s § 49-4-604(c)(5) order—removing custody from the father while leaving his parental rights legally intact—was affirmed.

  Analysis

  A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  • In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89 (2011) – Established the bifurcated standard of review that the Supreme Court applied to uphold the circuit court’s factual findings.
  • In re K.L., 247 W. Va. 657 (2022) – Recognised “failure to participate” in an improvement period as a valid ground for termination; the Court used this reasoning by analogy to support the less-severe § 49-4-604(c)(5) disposition.
  • Sowards v. Ames, 248 W. Va. 213 (2023) & State ex rel. Scott v. Boles, 150 W. Va. 453 (1966) – Articulated the presumption of regularity, allowing the Court to assume the circuit court made on-the-record findings even though the full transcript was absent.

  B. Statutory Framework and Legal Reasoning

  “The parent shall be responsible for the initiation and completion of all terms of the improvement period.” — W. Va. Code § 49-4-610(4)(A)

  The Court’s legal analysis pivoted on three statutory anchors:

  1. § 49-4-604(c)(5) – Authorises removal of custody when (i) continuation in the home is contrary to the child’s welfare, (ii) DHS made reasonable reunification efforts, and (iii) the child will achieve permanency in the alternative placement.
  2. § 49-4-610 – Governs improvement periods; subsections (2)(E) and (4)(A) require a court-approved case plan and assign the burden of completion to the parent.
  3. Rule 28, Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse & Neglect Proceedings – Mandates comprehensive case plans with measurable objectives, which DHS complied with.

  Applying these provisions, the Court concluded:

  • The father’s violations were squarely within the pre-existing case plan (no new factual predicate was needed).
  • Because the statutory ten-month improvement period had lapsed (§ 49-4-610(7)), the circuit court lacked authority to extend it further.
  • The circuit court’s factual findings—reasonable efforts by DHS, parental non-compliance, and the children’s best interests—were unchallenged on appeal or supported by substantial evidence, satisfying § 49-4-604(c)(5).

  C. Potential Impact

  This decision carries several implications for West Virginia abuse-and-neglect practice:

  • Elevated Importance of Case Plans: Attorneys now have clear notice that failing to heed case-plan restrictions (e.g., avoiding certain individuals, medication compliance) can alone justify loss of custody.
  • Streamlined Proceedings: DHS and guardians ad litem may rely on non-compliance evidence without filing serial amended petitions, reducing procedural delays.
  • Burden on Parents: Parents face an increased duty to police their own conduct, as later assertions of “willingness” will not counterbalance earlier non-compliance once an improvement period expires.
  • Judicial Economy and Presumption of Regularity: The Court’s willingness to presume regularity when transcripts are incomplete encourages diligent record-keeping by counsel who may wish to challenge lower-court procedure.
  • Permanency Planning: By affirming a non-terminating disposition, the Court signals flexibility: custody can be removed without the finality of severing parental rights, preserving the possibility of future reunification if the parent later corrects deficiencies.

  Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Post-Adjudicatory Improvement Period: A court-supervised timeframe (usually up to 12 months) in which a parent must complete tasks—therapy, drug testing, parenting classes—to prove they can safely care for the child.
  • Family Case Plan: A detailed document drafted by DHS outlining specific steps the parent must take, deadlines, and measurable outcomes; it becomes a court order once approved.
  • Multidisciplinary Treatment Team (MDT): A group comprising DHS workers, service providers, attorneys, and sometimes the parent, that monitors the case and adjusts services in real time.
  • § 49-4-604(c)(5) Disposition: Commonly called “guardianship” or “placement with a fit and willing person,” it removes the child from the parent’s physical custody but does not sever legal parental rights.
  • Presumption of Regularity: A doctrine that assumes a court followed proper procedure unless the record affirmatively shows otherwise.

  Conclusion

  In re A.M. and M.C. reinforces that in West Virginia abuse-and-neglect cases, the family case plan is not a mere guideline but a binding roadmap whose breach can lead directly to loss of custody. The decision harmonises statutory duties under § 49-4-610 with dispositional authority under § 49-4-604(c)(5) and clarifies that courts need not await new petitions or extend already-expired improvement periods to protect a child’s welfare. As a result, practitioners must treat case-plan compliance as mission-critical, and parents should receive clear advisories that every requirement—no matter how ancillary it may seem—carries legal consequences. In the broader legal landscape, the decision balances parental rights with child protection by endorsing an intermediate remedy that safeguards children while leaving the door open for eventual reunification if genuine, sustained progress is made.