Improvement Period May Be Denied When a Parent’s Promise to a Critical No‑Contact Condition Lacks Credibility, Even Amid Services Compliance

Introduction

In In re I.R. and E.B., No. 24-496 (W. Va. Sept. 30, 2025), the Supreme Court of West Virginia issued a memorandum decision affirming the Circuit Court of Gilmer County’s disposition terminating the parental rights of petitioner mother, C.C., to two minor children, I.R. and E.B. The principal appellate issue was whether the circuit court erred by denying C.C.’s request for an improvement period and proceeding to terminate her parental rights. The decision clarifies and reinforces that, under West Virginia’s abuse and neglect framework, a circuit court retains broad discretion to deny an improvement period when the parent fails to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, a credible likelihood of full participation—particularly where the most critical term is a no-contact condition with a high-risk co-parent and the parent’s testimony on compliance lacks credibility.

The case stems from disturbing conditions: a four-year-old found outside alone after escaping a locked bedroom, pervasive drug use in the home, and unsafe, unsanitary living conditions including exposed knives and drug paraphernalia, feces on walls, and rotting food. Both parents were adjudicated as abusive and neglectful after admitting to the core allegations. At disposition, despite the mother’s engagement in services and clean drug screens, the circuit court found that her refusal or inability to end her relationship with the father—who had two prior involuntary terminations for drug use, a lengthy history of substance abuse, and was incarcerated—undermined any credible prospect of success in an improvement period, and that termination served the children’s best interests.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court affirmed the denial of a post-adjudicatory improvement period under West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(2)(B), holding that the petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence a likelihood of full participation, given her lack of credibility on the critical no-contact with the father condition.
The Court deferred to the circuit court’s credibility determinations, emphasizing that appellate courts do not reweigh credibility based on a paper record.
The Court upheld termination under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6), finding no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect or abuse could be corrected in the near future, and that termination was necessary for the children’s welfare.
Compliance with discrete case plan tasks (e.g., negative drug screens, therapy attendance) does not compel an improvement period or preclude termination if the parent fails to address the core drivers of abuse/neglect—here, the enabling relationship with a high-risk co-parent.

Factual and Procedural Background

In March 2024, the Department of Human Services (DHS) filed an abuse and neglect petition alleging that the parents locked four-year-old I.R. in a bedroom, that he escaped through a window, and was found outside alone in the cold. DHS alleged routine use of marijuana and methamphetamine in the home and documented dangerous and unsanitary living conditions. Both parents were arrested for child neglect.

At the April 2024 adjudicatory hearing, the parents stipulated to the core allegations, including drug abuse and the unsafe condition of the home, and were adjudicated abusive and neglectful. The mother’s motion for an improvement period was not decided at adjudication.

At the July 2024 dispositional hearing:

Forensic evaluator Dr. Megan L. Green testified that the mother’s prognosis for minimally adequate parenting was “guarded.”
A CPS worker reported the mother was engaged in therapy and treatment, employed, testing negative on drug screens, and initially recommended an improvement period.
Regarding the father, DHS recommended termination based on his extensive drug history, two prior involuntary terminations for drug use/noncompliance, and current incarceration.
On cross-examination, the CPS worker learned the mother intended to continue her relationship with the father; her prior recommendation had assumed the relationship would end.
The mother testified she was still in a “committed relationship” with the father, wanted him to receive an improvement period, and—though tearfully stating she would end the relationship if ordered—repeatedly expressed opposition to doing so and a desire to co-parent.
The father confirmed the relationship and daily phone calls from jail.

Following testimony, DHS’s prosecutor expressed hesitancy to support an improvement period given the mother’s testimony; the guardian ad litem recommended denial. The circuit court found no reasonable grounds to believe the mother and father would improve in the foreseeable future, concluded the mother’s efforts were insufficient because she would not terminate the relationship with the father, and held that the children’s best interests required termination. The father’s rights were also terminated, with a permanency plan of adoption in the current placement.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

Standard of Review: Syllabus point 1, In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011), governs: factual findings reviewed for clear error; legal conclusions reviewed de novo. This frames deference to the circuit court’s on-the-ground factfinding, including credibility determinations.
Improvement Period Discretion: In re M.M., 236 W. Va. 108, 115, 778 S.E.2d 338, 345 (2015) and In re Tonjia M., 212 W. Va. 443, 448, 573 S.E.2d 354, 359 (2002) reaffirm that circuit courts have discretion to grant or deny improvement periods and may deny them when no improvement is likely. This principle undergirds the affirmance despite some evidence of compliance.
Credibility Deference: Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W. Va. 381, 388, 497 S.E.2d 531, 538 (1997) cautions appellate courts not to second-guess trial-level credibility assessments. The Court relied on this to uphold the circuit court’s determination that the mother’s promise to end the relationship was not credible.
Compliance vs. Substantive Change: In re Jonathan Michael D., 194 W. Va. 20, 27, 459 S.E.2d 131, 138 (1995), quoting W. Va. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Peggy F., 184 W. Va. 60, 64, 399 S.E.2d 460, 464 (1990), recognizes that a parent can comply with discrete case plan tasks yet fail to improve the overall approach to parenting. This precedent squarely addresses why negative drug screens and attendance in services did not compel an improvement period here.
Termination Without Less Restrictive Alternatives: Syllabus point 5 of In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (quoting syllabus point 2 of In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980)) authorizes termination without employing less restrictive options when there is no reasonable likelihood that conditions can be substantially corrected. The Court applied this in view of West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) and (d).
Statutory Framework:
- West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(2)(B): a post-adjudicatory improvement period requires the parent to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that they are likely to fully participate.
- West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6): authorizes termination when no reasonable likelihood exists that conditions can be substantially corrected in the near future and termination is necessary for the child’s welfare.
- West Virginia Code § 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.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in two steps: first, upholding the discretionary denial of an improvement period; second, affirming termination based on statutory findings supported by the record.

Denial of the Improvement Period. The dispositive point was the “critical term” of any improvement period: the mother’s no-contact with the father, identified as a significant contributor to the neglect and abuse (enabling her substance use and presenting an ongoing risk due to his history and incarceration). Although the mother testified she would end the relationship if ordered, the circuit court found that testimony not credible in light of her consistent statements expressing opposition to separation, her desire to co-parent, and ongoing daily communication with the father. Under § 49-4-610(2)(B), the burden is on the parent to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence a likelihood of full participation. Where the central safety condition is not credibly embraced, that burden is unmet. Deference to the circuit court’s credibility findings (Michael D.C.) foreclosed appellate reweighing.
Termination of Parental Rights. The circuit court expressly found “no reasonable grounds” to believe the parents would improve in the foreseeable future and concluded termination was in the children’s best interests. Applying § 49-4-604(c)(6) and (d), the Supreme Court agreed that the mother’s inability or unwillingness to sever the relationship evidenced an inadequate capacity to solve the core problems of abuse and neglect, even with services. The Court emphasized established doctrine: a parent may complete tasks yet fail to effectuate substantive change in parental judgment and safety (Jonathan Michael D.; Peggy F.). Because the statutory prerequisites were satisfied, termination was proper without resort to less restrictive alternatives (Kristin Y.; R.J.M.).

Why the DHS’s Initial Recommendation Didn’t Carry the Day

The CPS worker initially recommended an improvement period but did so under a factual assumption—believing the relationship with the father had ended. Once cross-examination exposed the ongoing relationship, DHS’s prosecutor expressed hesitancy to continue supporting an improvement period, and the guardian ad litem recommended denial. The circuit court is not bound by an agency’s recommendation; rather, it evaluates the totality of the evidence against the statutory standards. The Court’s affirmance underscores that judicial discretion, not agency preference, governs the improvement period decision, especially where pivotal facts about safety conditions emerge at hearing.

Impact and Practical Significance

This decision, while a memorandum disposition, provides a clear and practical message for abuse and neglect practice in West Virginia:

No-contact conditions are outcome-determinative. When the predicate harm is intertwined with a partner’s conduct (e.g., a co-parent with prior involuntary terminations, active substance abuse, or incarceration), a no-contact term will likely be the fulcrum of any improvement period. A parent’s reluctance or ambivalence toward that condition will weigh heavily against granting an improvement period.
Services compliance is necessary but not sufficient. Clean drug screens, employment, and therapy attendance are positive but will not overcome failures to address the true drivers of risk. Courts will look for demonstrable, credible behavioral change aligned with child safety, not merely box-checking.
Credibility is central—and insulated on appeal. Because appellate courts defer to trial-level credibility determinations, parents must create a record of concrete, corroborated actions consistent with claimed commitments (e.g., verifiable cessation of contact, safety planning, housing separation) to meet the clear-and-convincing threshold for an improvement period.
Agency recommendations are informative, not dispositive. DHS and GAL recommendations may shift in real time based on hearing testimony. The court’s independent assessment controls.
Termination without less restrictive alternatives remains appropriate where the record supports findings of no reasonable likelihood of correction and necessity for the children’s welfare, even if some progress is shown.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Improvement Period: A court-ordered, time-limited opportunity for a parent to remedy abuse/neglect conditions under a structured case plan. To receive a post-adjudicatory improvement period (§ 49-4-610(2)(B)), the parent must prove by clear and convincing evidence they are likely to fully participate in the plan’s terms and achieve improvement.
Clear and Convincing Evidence: A heightened standard of proof requiring a firm belief or conviction in the truth of the evidence—more than “more likely than not,” but less than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
No Reasonable Likelihood of Correction: Under § 49-4-604(d), this exists when the parent has shown an inadequate capacity to solve the problems of abuse or neglect, even with help. It focuses on near-term prospects for meaningful change, not aspirations or partial compliance.
Best Interests of the Child: The paramount consideration in disposition. The court weighs permanency, safety, and well-being; if maintaining parental rights undermines these interests and correction is unlikely soon, termination is authorized.
Credibility Determination: A trial court’s assessment of whether a witness is believable. Appellate courts defer heavily because trial judges directly observe demeanor, consistency, and context.
Psychological Father: A person who, while not the biological parent, has formed a parent-like relationship with a child and is treated in the proceedings as a parental figure. Here, the father was the biological father of E.B. and the “psychological father” of I.R.

Practice Pointers

For parents seeking an improvement period where a no-contact term is critical, corroboration is key: obtain and comply with no-contact orders, document cessation of communication (call logs, blocked numbers), relocate if necessary, and demonstrate sustained separation over time with third-party verification.
Counsel should identify early the “critical terms” of any potential improvement period and build a record of credible compliance with those terms before disposition.
DHS and GALs should ensure recommendations rest on verified facts about ongoing relationships and safety dynamics; cross-examination can materially alter the suitability of an improvement period.
Courts can and should articulate why particular terms (e.g., no-contact with a co-parent) are essential to child safety and how credibility assessments impact the § 49-4-610(2)(B) likelihood-of-participation finding.

Conclusion

In re I.R. and E.B. affirms a straightforward but consequential rule of abuse and neglect practice: an improvement period is not a matter of right, and a parent’s ability to secure one turns on credible evidence that they will fully participate in its most critical safety conditions. Where the record shows ongoing attachment to a high-risk co-parent and the parent’s assurances to sever contact are not credible, a circuit court acts within its discretion to deny an improvement period. The decision also reiterates that partial compliance with services cannot substitute for substantive, safety-centered change, and termination may proceed without less restrictive alternatives when statutory findings are supported.

The Court’s unanimous affirmance underscores the primacy of the children’s best interests and the deference owed to trial courts on credibility and predictive judgments about a parent’s near-term capacity to remediate harm. For practitioners, the case is a pointed reminder: in cases involving dangerous relational dynamics, concrete, verifiable separation from the source of risk is often the linchpin for any meaningful reunification pathway.

Citation: In re I.R. and E.B., No. 24-496 (W. Va. Sept. 30, 2025) (memorandum decision) (affirming Gilmer County Nos. CC-11-2024-JA-5 and CC-11-2024-JA-6).