Failure to Follow Through with a Court-Conditioned Improvement Period (Including Inpatient Treatment) Supports Termination; Credibility Findings and Inadequately Briefed Extension Claims Will Not Be Disturbed

1. Introduction

Case: In re B.O.-1, B.O.-2, A.O., B.O.-3, and P.O.
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
Date Issued: March 24, 2026
Procedural Posture: Father (T.O.) appealed the Circuit Court of Wayne County’s May 23, 2025 dispositional order terminating his parental rights.

This abuse-and-neglect appeal arose after the West Virginia Department of Human Services (“DHS”) alleged that the children’s adoptive parents failed to provide suitable housing, abused controlled substances, and lacked motivation to parent. The petition followed a history of referrals (fifteen between September 2021 and September 2024). At adjudication, Father stipulated both to unsuitable housing and to methamphetamine use affecting his parenting. He then sought a post-adjudicatory improvement period, which the circuit court granted on an express condition: participation in long-term inpatient substance-abuse treatment.

The central appellate issue was whether termination was erroneous where Father showed some partial compliance (notably, some visitation success and some home improvement), but missed screens, continued to test positive, attended only about half of required classes, failed to obtain employment, and—critically—never began the inpatient treatment that the court made a condition of his improvement period.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed termination. Applying the abuse-and-neglect standard of review, it concluded the circuit court did not err in finding (1) no reasonable likelihood the conditions of neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future, and (2) termination was necessary for the children’s welfare/best interests.

The Court emphasized that West Virginia law recognizes termination when a parent does not respond to or follow through with a reasonable family case plan or other rehabilitative efforts. Father’s noncompliance was established by missed drug screens, multiple positive results for methamphetamine and amphetamines (including during the improvement period), and his failure to commence court-ordered inpatient treatment. The Court further deferred to the circuit court’s credibility determination rejecting Father’s claimed confusion about whether inpatient treatment was required.

Finally, the Court declined to address Father’s request for “additional time” (by extension of the improvement period or a post-dispositional improvement period) because he did not show that such relief was sought below or properly supported on appeal with record citations and authority, as required by the appellate rules.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

Syl. Pt. 1, In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011)

Role in the decision: The Court anchored its review in the familiar bifurcated standard: findings of fact are reviewed for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. This framework matters in termination appeals because the result often turns on the circuit court’s factual determinations about compliance, substance use, credibility, and prognosis.

Practical effect here: Once the circuit court found Father missed screens, tested positive multiple times, and never started inpatient treatment, the Supreme Court’s task was not to reweigh evidence but to determine whether those findings were clearly erroneous. They were not.

In re K.L., 247 W. Va. 657, 667, 885 S.E.2d 595, 605 (2022)

Role in the decision: The Court relied on In re K.L. to underscore that a parent’s “failure to participate” in an improvement period is a “statutorily-recognized basis upon which this Court regularly affirms termination of parental rights.”

Practical effect here: Father’s partial compliance did not overcome the statutory and precedential emphasis on meaningful participation in the rehabilitative components of the plan—especially those addressing the core safety threat (substance abuse). By citing In re K.L., the Court signaled that incomplete or inconsistent participation can be dispositive when it prevents correction of the underlying neglect.

Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W. Va. 381, 388, 497 S.E.2d 531, 538 (1997)

Role in the decision: The Court invoked Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C. for the proposition that appellate courts do not second-guess the trier of fact’s credibility determinations because credibility cannot be assessed from a cold record.

Practical effect here: Father argued he was confused about whether inpatient treatment was required. The circuit court disbelieved this explanation, pointing to the express conditioning language and the availability of the January 17, 2025 order. The Supreme Court treated that credibility call as essentially unassailable on appeal absent clear error.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

Statutory termination framework: W. Va. Code § 49-4-604

The Court’s reasoning tracks two core statutory provisions:

  • W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6): Termination is permitted “[u]pon a finding that there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected in the near future and, when necessary for the welfare of the child.”
  • W. Va. Code § 604(d)(3): “No reasonable likelihood” exists when the parent has “not responded to or followed through with a reasonable family case plan or other rehabilitative efforts... designed to reduce or prevent the abuse or neglect of the child.”

How the facts satisfied the statute

The circuit court’s termination decision rested on a compliance-based prognosis:

  • Substance-use risk remained unmitigated: Father missed 20 of 44 required screens; among completed screens, multiple positives occurred, including a positive on March 14, 2025—during the improvement period.
  • Failure to complete key services: Father attended only about half of parenting and adult life-skills classes and did not obtain employment.
  • Failure to satisfy a court-imposed condition: The improvement period was granted “on the condition” that Father enter and participate in long-term inpatient treatment. He never began it.

Even where Father showed progress (supervised visitation generally successful; partial improvement to the home), the Court treated the decisive question as whether the core neglect conditions—particularly substance abuse affecting parenting capacity—were likely to be corrected soon. Continued positive tests and refusal/failure to enter required inpatient treatment supported the finding that they were not.

Waiver / forfeiture of “additional time” argument under the appellate rules

Father suggested he should have received more time via extension of the post-adjudicatory improvement period or a post-dispositional improvement period. The Court refused to reach the point because he did not show (1) where he moved for such relief in the record and (2) supporting authority on appeal, as required by Rule 10(c)(7) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. This portion of the decision reinforces that, even in parental-rights appeals, appellate review is constrained by preservation and adequate briefing requirements.

3.3. Impact

  • Conditioned improvement periods have real teeth: When an improvement period is expressly conditioned on a specific remedial step (here, long-term inpatient treatment), failure to complete that condition can be treated as failure to participate in the improvement period itself, supporting a “no reasonable likelihood” finding under § 604(d)(3).
  • Partial compliance is not a safe harbor: Progress in some domains (home improvements; some visitation success) will not necessarily prevent termination if the primary safety driver—often substance abuse—remains unaddressed or worsens during the improvement period.
  • Credibility determinations are outcome-determinative and largely insulated: The Court’s reliance on Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C. signals that explanations for noncompliance (e.g., “confusion” about requirements) must be persuasive at the circuit court level; appellate courts rarely re-evaluate those judgments.
  • Appellate briefing discipline matters: Requests for additional improvement time must be preserved below and presented on appeal with record pinpoint citations and legal authority; otherwise, the argument may be deemed waived.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Adjudication vs. disposition: “Adjudication” determines whether abuse/neglect occurred (here, Father stipulated). “Disposition” determines the remedy (services, improvement period, or termination).
  • Post-adjudicatory improvement period: A court-supervised window after adjudication in which the parent must comply with a case plan to correct conditions of abuse/neglect.
  • Case plan / MDT: The “multidisciplinary team” process develops a service plan (screens, classes, treatment, housing, employment) intended to reduce risk and reunify safely if possible.
  • “No reasonable likelihood ... can be substantially corrected in the near future”: A forward-looking prediction grounded in evidence of response to services. Repeated noncompliance and continued drug use are classic indicators supporting this finding.
  • Standards of review—clear error and de novo: “Clear error” means the appellate court won’t overturn factual findings simply because it might have decided differently; “de novo” means legal questions are reviewed anew.
  • Best interests of the child: Even if statutory grounds are met, termination must also be necessary for the child’s welfare; the Court noted Father did not challenge the best-interests finding on appeal.

5. Conclusion

In re B.O.-1, B.O.-2, A.O., B.O.-3, and P.O. reaffirms a practical rule in West Virginia abuse-and-neglect jurisprudence: when a parent fails to follow through with a reasonable case plan—especially by missing drug screens, continuing to test positive, and not completing a court-conditioned treatment requirement—courts may find no reasonable likelihood of near-term correction and terminate parental rights under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6). The decision further underscores two durable appellate principles: (1) credibility determinations belong to the circuit court, and (2) requests for additional improvement time must be preserved and properly briefed or they will not be addressed.