Continued Relationship with a Co‑Abusive Partner Can Defeat an Improvement Period and Support Termination Despite Service Compliance

Introduction

In In re I.R. and E.B., No. 24-496 (W. Va. Sept. 30, 2025), the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed a Gilmer County circuit court’s decision denying a mother’s request for an improvement period and terminating her parental rights to two minor children. The case arose from serious allegations of child neglect and unsafe living conditions, including drug use in the home, an instance of locking a four-year-old in a bedroom, and hazardous home conditions. Both parents were adjudicated as abusive and neglectful after stipulating to the petition’s core allegations.

The central appellate issue was whether the circuit court erred by terminating the mother’s parental rights instead of granting an improvement period. The crux of the dispute turned on the mother’s continued relationship with the father—who had a lengthy drug history, two prior involuntary terminations of parental rights, and was incarcerated—and whether her stated willingness to end that relationship, if ordered, was credible and sufficient to demonstrate she was “likely to fully participate” in an improvement period under West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(2)(B).

The Court concluded that the circuit court did not clearly err in finding the mother’s testimony not credible and did not abuse its discretion in denying an improvement period. It further held that the statutory standards for terminating parental rights were met, emphasizing that compliance with discrete case plan components (drug screens, therapy, employment) does not compel an improvement period or preclude termination where a parent’s overall attitude and approach to parenting—and in particular, their unwillingness to sever a demonstrably harmful relationship—undermine the likelihood of meaningful change.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court affirmed the August 7, 2024 dispositional order terminating the mother’s parental rights (and noted an amended order entered on August 20, 2024). It held:

Denial of an improvement period was within the circuit court’s discretion because the mother failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that she was likely to fully participate—specifically, she was not credibly willing to abide by a no-contact condition with the father, deemed a critical term given his role in the neglect conditions.
The findings supporting termination under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) and (d) were not clearly erroneous. There was no reasonable likelihood the conditions of abuse or neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future, and termination was necessary for the children’s welfare.
The circuit court’s credibility determinations—particularly that the mother’s late-breaking commitment to sever contact with the father lacked credibility—are entitled to deference on appeal.

In reaching these conclusions, the Court emphasized that improvement periods are discretionary, that credibility assessments are uniquely within the trial court’s province, and that meaningful change requires more than technical compliance with select services; it requires demonstrable behavioral and attitudinal change aligned with child safety and wellbeing.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

Syl. Pt. 1, In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011): Establishes the standard of review—factual findings are reviewed for clear error, legal conclusions de novo. The Court applied this framework to uphold the circuit court’s fact-driven credibility findings and legal application of the improvement-period and termination statutes.
In re M.M., 236 W. Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (2015) and In re Tonjia M., 212 W. Va. 443, 573 S.E.2d 354 (2002): Confirm that circuit courts have discretion to grant or deny improvement periods and may deny when no improvement is likely. These cases undergird the Court’s refusal to disturb the trial court’s discretionary denial based on the mother’s ongoing relationship with the father.
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W. Va. 381, 497 S.E.2d 531 (1997): Appellate courts do not reweigh witness credibility from a cold record. The Court relied on this to uphold the circuit court’s determination that the mother’s eleventh-hour promise to end the relationship lacked credibility.
In re Jonathan Michael D., 194 W. Va. 20, 459 S.E.2d 131 (1995), quoting W. Va. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Peggy F., 184 W. Va. 60, 399 S.E.2d 460 (1990): A parent may comply with specific elements of a case plan yet fail to improve their overall attitude and approach to parenting. The Court applied this principle to explain why clean drug screens, employment, and therapy participation did not outweigh the mother’s unwillingness to exit a relationship that endangered the children.
Syl. Pt. 5, In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011), quoting Syl. Pt. 2, In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980): Termination may be ordered without less restrictive alternatives when there is no reasonable likelihood that conditions can be corrected. Having found the statutory “no reasonable likelihood” criterion met, the Court endorsed termination without intermediate dispositions.

Statutory Framework and Its Application

Improvement period (post-adjudicatory): West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(2)(B) requires that a parent demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence they are likely to fully participate in an improvement period. Participation is not presumed; it must be affirmatively shown with credible evidence.
Termination of parental rights: West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) permits termination upon findings that (i) there is no reasonable likelihood the conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected in the near future and (ii) termination is necessary for the child’s welfare. Section 49-4-604(d) defines “no reasonable likelihood” as demonstrated inadequate capacity to solve the problems of abuse or neglect on one’s own or with help.

The Court held that the circuit court reasonably applied both statutes: the mother did not meet her burden to obtain an improvement period, and the statutory grounds for termination were established on the record.

The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeded in two steps aligned with the dispositional posture:

Improvement period denial: The dispositive factual predicate was the mother’s continued commitment to her relationship with the father, whom the record showed to be a significant contributor to the neglectful conditions (drug use, unsafe home), and who had two prior involuntary terminations and was incarcerated. DHS identified no-contact with the father as the “most critical term” of any improvement period. The mother’s testimony oscillated—she advocated for the father to receive an improvement period, expressed opposition to ending the relationship, then, when pressed, said she would comply if ordered. The circuit court found this testimony lacked credibility. On appeal, the Court deferred to that credibility determination, concluding the mother did not show, by clear and convincing evidence, that she would fully participate in the improvement period’s critical no-contact condition. Because improvement periods are discretionary and depend upon the parent’s likely compliance with essential terms, the denial stood.
Termination affirmed: Given the “guarded” prognosis from the forensic evaluator, the mother’s unwillingness (as credibly assessed) to sever ties with a co-abusive partner, and the role that relationship played in perpetuating drug abuse and unsafe conditions, the circuit court found no reasonable likelihood the problems could be substantially corrected in the near future. The Court further noted it may terminate parental rights without less restrictive alternatives when the statutory standard is met, citing Kristin Y. The mother did not challenge the best-interests finding on appeal, and the record supported that termination was necessary for the children’s welfare, especially given the permanency plan for adoption in their current placement.

How the Facts Mapped to the Legal Standards

Adjudication: Parents stipulated to core allegations (drug use, unsafe home), supporting adjudications of abuse and neglect.
Evidence bearing on improvement period:
- Mother’s participation in therapy and treatment, negative drug screens, and employment weighed in favor of some progress.
- However, Dr. Green’s “guarded” prognosis and the mother’s sustained relationship with the father—despite his drug history, prior TPRs, and incarceration—undermined the likelihood of full participation in a critical no-contact term.
- The DHS caseworker initially recommended an improvement period but acknowledged on cross-examination that this was premised in part on an (incorrect) assumption that the relationship had ended. After testimony clarified the relationship’s ongoing nature, the State’s counsel expressed hesitance, and the guardian ad litem recommended denial.
- Father’s testimony that he and the mother spoke daily while he was incarcerated corroborated the ongoing relationship, weakening the credibility of any promise to sever ties.
Termination findings: The mother’s inability to end the relationship was reasonably viewed as perpetuating the core risks (drug use, unsafe caregiving) and evidencing an inadequate capacity to solve the problems in the near future, satisfying § 49-4-604(d). Termination was also found necessary for the children’s welfare; this finding went unchallenged on appeal.

Procedural Posture and Standards of Review

Standards of review: Clear-error review applies to factual findings (including credibility); legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. The Court emphasized long-standing deference to the trial court’s credibility assessments.
Memorandum decision under Rule 21: The Court determined that oral argument was unnecessary and resolved the appeal by memorandum decision. While no new syllabus points were issued, the decision is instructive in the application of Improvement Period and Termination statutes to facts involving a co-abusive relationship.

Impact and Future Ramifications

Although styled as a memorandum decision, this case has clear practical implications for abuse and neglect litigation in West Virginia:

No-contact with a co-abusive partner can be a critical improvement-period term: Where a romantic partner is a direct contributor to the abuse/neglect conditions, a court may condition any improvement period on absolute no-contact. A parent’s refusal—or non-credible promise—to end such contact can justify denying an improvement period.
Service compliance is not dispositive: Employment, clean drug screens, and therapy—while commendable—do not compel an improvement period or bar termination when the parent’s overall attitude and choices (here, continued alliance with a co-abusive partner) signal a lack of meaningful change.
Credibility is central and highly deferential on appeal: Courts may look beyond promises and require demonstrated, corroborated steps (e.g., voluntary no-contact, relocation, protective orders) to establish the “clear and convincing” likelihood of full participation.
Agency recommendations may evolve at hearing: A CPS worker’s initial support for an improvement period may shift once facts are clarified on the record; trial courts are not bound by preliminary agency recommendations and remain responsible for independent judgment based on the full evidentiary record.
Termination without lesser alternatives remains available: Where the statutory “no reasonable likelihood” showing is made, courts may proceed directly to termination in the children’s best interests without intermediate dispositions.
Practice pointers:
- Parents seeking an improvement period should take concrete, documentable steps to separate from co-abusive partners and present corroboration (e.g., lease changes, protective orders, third-party affidavits).
- Counsel should prepare clients to address credibility head-on and marshal evidence that any separation is real and durable.
- DHS and GALs should expressly analyze relational dynamics that contribute to neglect, including the partner’s criminal and child-welfare histories, and explain why a no-contact term is essential.
Note on domestic violence dynamics: The opinion does not indicate that the mother asserted coercion or intimate-partner violence as a reason for remaining in the relationship. In cases where coercive control or safety planning is at issue, courts should carefully distinguish between unwillingness and inability to separate, and tailor conditions and supports accordingly. This decision, however, turns on the mother’s continued, voluntary commitment to the relationship despite known risks.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Improvement Period: A court-ordered opportunity for a parent to correct problems that led to abuse/neglect findings. It comes with specific terms (e.g., treatment, abstinence, safe housing, no-contact with risky individuals). To obtain one after adjudication, the parent must prove—by clear and convincing evidence—that they are likely to fully comply.
Clear and Convincing Evidence: A heightened standard of proof, requiring evidence that makes the fact to be proven highly probable—not merely more likely than not.
No Reasonable Likelihood of Correction: A finding that, even with help, the parent lacks the capacity to fix the problems that led to abuse/neglect in the near future. It authorizes termination when also necessary for the child’s welfare.
Best Interests of the Child: The governing principle in dispositional decisions—courts prioritize the child’s safety, permanency, and well-being over a parent’s desire for additional time or services.
Adjudicatory vs. Dispositional Hearings: Adjudication determines whether abuse/neglect occurred. Disposition decides what happens next (e.g., improvement period, termination), based on the current circumstances and prospects for change.
Guardian ad Litem (GAL): An attorney appointed to represent the child’s best interests. The GAL’s recommendations are influential but not binding.
“Guarded” Prognosis: A clinical term indicating concern that, without significant change, the individual is unlikely to reach minimally adequate parenting in the near future.

Conclusion

In re I.R. and E.B. reinforces that improvement periods are not automatic, even for parents who present clean drug screens, steady employment, and therapy participation. When a co-abusive relationship is a central driver of neglect, courts may make no-contact a critical term. A parent’s unwillingness—or non-credible promise—to sever that relationship can defeat the requisite showing that they are “likely to fully participate” in an improvement period. Likewise, where that relational dynamic evidences an inability to correct conditions in the near future, termination may be warranted without resort to less restrictive alternatives, consistent with the child’s best interests.

The decision underscores two enduring themes in West Virginia’s abuse and neglect jurisprudence: deference to trial courts’ credibility determinations and the primacy of the child’s safety and permanency. For practitioners, it highlights the need to substantiate behavioral change with objective, corroborated actions—especially when relationships with co-abusive partners are at the heart of the case.

Case: In re I.R. and E.B., No. 24-496 (W. Va. Sept. 30, 2025) (memorandum decision).
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Disposition: Affirmed. All concurring: Chief Justice Wooton; Justices Bunn, Trump, Ewing; Senior Status Justice Hutchison.