Introduction

In this memorandum decision, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirms a circuit court’s order terminating the parental rights of Petitioner Mother C.M. to three minor children (A.A., K.A., and A.R.). The mother argued the court should have imposed a less restrictive alternative—namely, a legal guardianship with paternal grandparents—rather than termination. The Court rejects that argument, reiterating that when a circuit court finds there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected in the near future, and termination is necessary for the child’s welfare, the court may proceed directly to termination without interposing less restrictive alternatives.

The decision applies settled law to a record showing extended noncompliance with an improvement period, repeated positive drug and alcohol tests, refusal to engage in inpatient rehabilitation, and lapses in mandated drug screening, all of which undermined the mother’s ability to correct conditions of neglect. Importantly, the Court clarifies that a parent’s late-stage consent to legal guardianship does not preclude termination where the statutory predicates are met.

Summary of the Opinion

The West Virginia Department of Human Services (DHS) filed an abuse and neglect petition in December 2022 alleging parental substance abuse, unsafe living conditions, and failures in hygiene, medical care, and supervision. After an adjudication in early 2023 based on the mother’s stipulation (with a narrow exception), the circuit court granted an improvement period requiring sobriety from drugs, alcohol, and THC, along with participation in services and regular drug screening.

Despite an extension of the improvement period in September 2023, evidence presented at dispositional hearings in March 2024 showed persistent noncompliance: approximately twenty-seven positive drug and/or alcohol screens, a two-month lapse in screening (December 2023 through February 2024), and refusal to complete inpatient treatment. Although the mother later expressed willingness to relinquish custodial rights and consent to guardianship with paternal grandparents, she also stopped screening after November 2023 and violated supervised visitation terms by spending a weekend with the children at her parents’ home.

The circuit court found no reasonable likelihood that the mother could substantially correct the conditions of neglect in the near future, concluded that legal guardianship would leave the children without a meaningful sense of security, and held that termination was necessary for their welfare. The Supreme Court affirmed, citing statutory authority permitting termination without resort to less restrictive alternatives where the statutory findings are made.

Factual and Procedural Background

• Initial Petition (Dec. 2022): DHS alleged drug abuse in the children’s presence, deplorable living conditions, and failure to provide hygiene, medical care, and supervision. At the preliminary hearing, the mother tested positive for THC, methamphetamine, and amphetamine, and she waived a contested hearing.
• Adjudication (Jan. 2023): Petitioner stipulated to most allegations (except the supervision allegation) and was adjudicated as neglectful.
• Improvement Period (Mar. 2023): The court required sobriety from drugs, alcohol, and THC; parenting and life-skills classes; supervised visitation; appropriate housing; and a counseling assessment. In September 2023, over DHS’s objection, the court extended the improvement period notwithstanding lapses in screening.
• Shift Toward Guardianship (Nov. 2023 – Feb. 2024): The mother expressed a desire to voluntarily relinquish custodial rights to permit legal guardianship with A.A. and K.A.’s paternal grandparents. But DHS reported she then ceased screening and violated supervised visitation by spending an unsupervised weekend with the children at her parents’ home.
• Dispositional Hearings (Mar. 2024): DHS witnesses testified to continued noncompliance, including about twenty-seven positive tests for drugs and/or alcohol, a two-month screening lapse, and refusal of inpatient rehab. The mother acknowledged struggles with sobriety, claimed no illegal use after obtaining a medical cannabis card in February 2024, declined to explain the card, denied being told to continue screening, and offered no timeline for reunification while proposing guardianship.
• Dispositional Order (July 2, 2024): The circuit court found no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction in the near future, determined legal guardianship would not provide meaningful security, and terminated the mother’s parental rights.
• Other Parents: A.A. and K.A.’s father (C.A.) successfully completed an improvement period; his rights remain intact, and respondents indicate he will consent to an adoption of A.A. and K.A. A.R.’s father’s rights were terminated; A.R.’s permanency plan is adoption in her current placement.

Key Issue on Appeal

Whether the circuit court erred by terminating the mother’s parental rights rather than implementing a less restrictive alternative—specifically, an agreed legal guardianship—given the mother’s willingness to consent to that disposition.

Holding

Affirmed. A circuit court may terminate parental rights without using less restrictive alternatives when it finds, based on the evidentiary record, that there is no reasonable likelihood the conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected in the near future and termination is necessary for the child’s welfare. A parent’s consent to an alternative, such as legal guardianship, does not constrain the court’s authority to terminate where the statutory criteria are satisfied.

Precedents and Authorities Cited

Statutes

• W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6): Authorizes termination of parental rights upon a finding that there is no reasonable likelihood that conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected in the near future and termination is necessary for the welfare of the child.
• W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(d)(3): Defines when “no reasonable likelihood” exists, including where the parent has demonstrated an inadequate capacity to solve the problem on their own or with help, such as failing to respond to or follow through with a reasonable family case plan or other rehabilitative efforts.

Cases

• Syl. Pt. 1, In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011): Establishes the appellate standard of review—factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.
• Syl. Pt. 5 (in part), In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011), quoting In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980): Confirms that termination “may be employed without the use of intervening less restrictive alternatives” when no reasonable likelihood of correction exists.

Procedural Rule

• W. Va. R. App. P. 21: Permits a memorandum decision without oral argument when the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument and controlling law is clear.

How These Authorities Shaped the Outcome

The Court’s analysis relies on a straightforward application of § 49-4-604 and the Kristin Y./R.J.M. line: once the circuit court made supported findings that the mother failed to follow through with a reasonable case plan, showed inadequate capacity to address the causes of neglect, and that the children required permanency, it had statutory authority to terminate without adopting a less restrictive alternative. Cecil T. furnished the standard of review that insulated the circuit court’s factual findings absent clear error. Rule 21 explains the Court’s choice to resolve the appeal by memorandum decision.

Legal Reasoning

1) No Reasonable Likelihood of Correction

The record showed prolonged noncompliance over more than a year: repeated positive screens for alcohol and controlled substances (about twenty-seven times), a two-month failure to screen during an ongoing improvement period, refusal to enter inpatient rehabilitation, and violation of supervised visitation terms. Under § 49-4-604(d)(3), such conduct evidences an “inadequate capacity to solve the problem” and a failure to follow through with a reasonable family case plan.

2) Child Welfare Requires Termination

The circuit court explicitly found that the children needed “safety, stability, security, consistency, and permanency with fully committed adults” and that a legal guardianship “would leave the children without any meaningful sense of security.” This finding aligns with the statute’s focus on child welfare. Where permanency and stability are pressing needs, and the parent has not made progress, termination may be necessary to advance the children’s best interests.

3) Less Restrictive Alternative Not Required

The mother’s proposal to consent to legal guardianship did not constrain the court. The Supreme Court reiterated settled law: termination may proceed without interposing less restrictive alternatives when the statutory predicates are satisfied. The Court emphasized that “the petitioner’s attempt to consent to an alternative disposition does not affect the circuit court’s ability to terminate parental rights” under § 49-4-604(c)(6).

4) Medical Cannabis Does Not Excuse Noncompliance

The mother argued that after obtaining a medical cannabis card in February 2024 she used no “illegal substances.” But the improvement period order prohibited THC and alcohol, and the mother was directed to continue screening. A medical authorization does not override a court’s child-protection orders. Moreover, her cessation of drug screening and additional positive tests (including alcohol) confirmed ongoing noncompliance unrelated to the legality of cannabis.

5) Standard of Review Applied

Applying Cecil T., the Supreme Court reviewed the circuit court’s factual findings for clear error and found them amply supported by the evidence. The legal conclusion—that termination was permissible under § 49-4-604—was reviewed de novo and affirmed. Because the case turned on settled principles applied to a well-developed evidentiary record, the Court resolved it via memorandum decision without oral argument under Rule 21.

Impact and Practical Implications

For Circuit Courts

• The decision underscores that courts retain full authority to terminate parental rights despite a parent’s willingness to consent to guardianship, provided the statutory criteria are met.
• Findings that guardianship would not provide “meaningful” security can justify declining a less restrictive alternative in favor of permanency through termination and adoption.

For Child Welfare Agencies and Guardians ad Litem

• Agencies may move from a contemplated guardianship to a recommendation for termination based on intervening noncompliance, and courts may credit such developments.
• The record should document the parent’s failure to follow through with case plan requirements and demonstrate why guardianship would not meet the child’s permanency and stability needs.

For Parents and Counsel

• Consent to guardianship late in the case does not forestall termination if the parent cannot show meaningful correction of the underlying issues and sustained compliance with the case plan.
• Court-ordered abstinence and drug screening requirements control, even where the parent later obtains a medical cannabis authorization. Ignoring screens or violating visitation terms seriously undermines the case for a less restrictive alternative.

For the Law of Permanency

• The decision reinforces West Virginia’s policy preference for permanency and stability. Guardianships, while sometimes appropriate, may be deemed insufficient where lingering parental instability threatens the child’s sense of security.
• The case may be cited as a clear statement that negotiated alternatives cannot override statutory termination authority when the parent’s noncompliance persists and children’s welfare demands finality.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Improvement Period: A timeframe during which a parent is offered services and must comply with conditions (e.g., sobriety, drug screening, classes, stable housing) to remedy abuse or neglect. Noncompliance can support termination.
• No Reasonable Likelihood of Correction: A statutory finding that the parent is unlikely to correct the conditions of abuse/neglect soon, often evidenced by failures to follow the case plan or engage with services.
• Less Restrictive Alternative: Options short of termination (e.g., legal guardianship, continued improvement period). Courts are not required to use them when statutory grounds for termination are established and child welfare so requires.
• Legal Guardianship vs. Adoption: Guardianship can provide care without severing parental rights and is typically more easily modified. Adoption is permanent and terminates parental rights (absent specific exceptions). Courts may find adoption better serves permanency and stability.
• Memorandum Decision (Rule 21): A streamlined appellate disposition used when existing law controls the outcome and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.

Application of Law to the Facts

• Evidence of Noncompliance: Approximately twenty-seven positive drug/alcohol screens; two-month lapse in screening; refusal of inpatient treatment; violation of supervised visitation; continued THC use contrary to court order.
• Case Plan Failures: The mother’s conduct fell squarely within § 49-4-604(d)(3)’s definition of failing to follow a reasonable case plan, supporting the “no reasonable likelihood” finding.
• Child Welfare Needs: The circuit court’s explicit focus on safety, stability, and permanency, and its rejection of guardianship as insufficiently secure, satisfied the necessity element for termination under § 49-4-604(c)(6).
• Guardianship Offer: While the mother offered to relinquish custodial rights, the law does not require courts to accept that alternative when statutory termination criteria are met; indeed, late noncompliance after proposing guardianship strengthened the case for termination.

Practice Pointers

• Document Compliance Trajectories: DHS and GALs should build a clear record of compliance/noncompliance over time, including missed screens and service refusals, to support “no reasonable likelihood” findings.
• Address THC Explicitly in Orders: If THC abstinence is required, orders should state it plainly; counsel should advise clients that medical authorization will not excuse noncompliance with court conditions during an improvement period.
• Evaluate Guardianship Realistically: When proposing guardianship, parties should be prepared to demonstrate why it provides sufficient stability and security in the particular case; absent that showing, courts may reject guardianship as inadequate.
• Timelines Matter: Late-breaking offers (e.g., to consent to guardianship) carry less weight when paired with recent noncompliance. Early, consistent engagement with services is critical.

What This Decision Does Not Do

• It does not create a categorical rule against legal guardianships in abuse and neglect cases; rather, it reaffirms that courts are not obliged to adopt guardianship where statutory grounds for termination are proven and child welfare requires it.
• It does not alter the standard of review or the statutory framework; it applies existing law to a fact pattern of sustained noncompliance.

Conclusion

In re A.A., K.A., and A.R. reinforces a core tenet of West Virginia abuse and neglect law: when a parent fails to meaningfully engage with a reasonable case plan and demonstrates an inadequate capacity to remedy neglect, the court may proceed directly to termination if necessary for the child’s welfare. A parent’s later consent to an alternative disposition—such as legal guardianship—does not constrain the court’s statutory authority to terminate, especially where the court finds guardianship would not deliver the permanence and security the children need.

Anchored in § 49-4-604 and long-standing precedent from Kristin Y. and R.J.M., the decision emphasizes permanency, stability, and child welfare over provisional arrangements in the face of persistent parental noncompliance. It offers clear guidance to practitioners: compliance with improvement period conditions is indispensable, court-ordered abstinence controls despite medical cannabis authorizations, and guardianship proposals must be measured against the child’s need for enduring stability.