Introduction
In re C.T. concerns the termination of J.T.’s parental rights to his young daughter, C.T. The West Virginia Department of Human Services (“DHS”) initially alleged that the father failed to provide food, supervision, education, and medical care, while the mother neglected the children because of substance abuse or untreated mental-health problems.
During adjudication, testimony revealed that the father had regularly used methamphetamine and suffered from mental-health conditions that impaired his parenting. The circuit court directed DHS to amend its petition, reopened adjudication, accepted the father’s written stipulation, and granted him a post-adjudicatory improvement period. After he failed to participate meaningfully in substance-abuse treatment, drug screening, domestic-violence services, parenting instruction, life-skills classes, and a psychological evaluation, the court revoked the improvement period and terminated his parental rights.
The appeal presented four principal issues: whether the petition could be amended; whether the father’s stipulation supported adjudication; whether his improvement period was properly terminated; and whether termination of parental rights, rather than a less restrictive disposition, was justified.
Summary of the Opinion
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court on every issue:
-
Amendment of the petition: The circuit court properly required DHS to add allegations concerning the father’s substance abuse and failure to protect the child after evidence of those matters was presented during adjudication.
-
Adjudication by stipulation: The father’s written admissions adequately identified both the facts supporting court intervention and the parenting deficiencies that required correction. The adjudication was also supported by hearing testimony.
-
Termination of the improvement period: The father agreed to the case-plan requirements but failed to participate in nearly all of them. West Virginia law places responsibility for initiating and completing services on the parent.
-
Termination of parental rights: The father’s untreated substance abuse, mental-health-related parenting limitations, and failure to follow the case plan established that the conditions of neglect could not reasonably be corrected in the near future. Termination was necessary for C.T.’s welfare and need for permanency.
Analysis
Standard of Review
Relying on In re K.S., the Court applied three levels of appellate review: substantive rulings were reviewed for abuse of discretion, factual findings for clear error, and legal questions de novo. This framework gave substantial deference to the circuit court’s factual assessment of the father’s participation while allowing independent review of the governing procedural and statutory rules.
1. Amendment of the Abuse-and-Neglect Petition
Rule 19(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings provides that newly arising allegations should be placed in an amended petition and that adjudication must be reopened to receive evidence concerning them.
The father argued that his substance abuse was not “new” because DHS had received a January 2025 letter documenting his admission to regular methamphetamine use. The Court rejected that argument because the record did not show that the letter had previously been presented to the circuit court. The court first heard evidence of the father’s drug use through testimony at the April and May 2025 adjudicatory hearings.
The decision therefore treats allegations as properly subject to amendment where the supporting evidence is newly brought before the adjudicating court, even if the agency may have possessed related information earlier. Importantly, the circuit court preserved procedural fairness by requiring a written amendment and holding an additional adjudicatory hearing.
2. Sufficiency of the Father’s Stipulation
Under Rule 26(a), a stipulation supporting adjudication must contain:
- Agreed facts showing why court intervention is warranted; and
- A statement of the parent’s problems or deficiencies that must be addressed before disposition.
The father admitted that his methamphetamine use affected his parenting, that his mental-health conditions left him unable to exercise or improve parenting skills, and that he failed to protect the children from the mother’s conduct. He also sought an improvement period to address those conditions.
Although the father contended that he had not seen the precise improvement-period terms before the June hearing, both he and counsel had attended an earlier multidisciplinary-team meeting at which those terms were discussed in depth. He signed the case plan two days after the hearing. The Court therefore found the stipulation knowing, voluntary, and sufficient.
The adjudication did not depend exclusively on the stipulation. The circuit court expressly relied on testimony from the earlier hearing as an additional evidentiary basis.
3. Revocation of the Improvement Period
The father objected particularly to the domestic-violence program, asserting that he had not been adjudicated as a perpetrator of domestic violence. The Court held that he had waived that objection by agreeing to the case plan without raising the issue below.
Moreover, domestic-violence services were only one aspect of his noncompliance. The evidence showed that he:
- Discharged himself from two substance-abuse treatment programs against professional advice;
- Failed to submit to drug screening;
- Did not enroll in the domestic-violence program;
- Did not participate in parenting or adult life-skills classes;
- Did not complete the required psychological evaluation; and
- Made insufficient progress to qualify for visitation with C.T.
West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(4)(A) makes the parent responsible for initiating and completing all improvement-period terms. Section 49-4-610(7) directs a court to terminate an improvement period when the parent fails to participate fully. Thus, the issue was not merely whether the father had completed every service by a deadline; it was whether he had meaningfully engaged at all. The circuit court’s finding that he was merely “going through the motions” was supported by the record.
4. Termination Without a Less Restrictive Disposition
Under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6), parental rights may be terminated when there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse or neglect can be substantially corrected in the near future and termination is necessary for the child’s welfare.
Sections 49-4-604(d)(1) and (3) identify circumstances demonstrating that correction is unlikely, including drug addiction that seriously impairs parenting where the parent has not followed recommended treatment, and failure to follow a reasonable family case plan.
Both circumstances were present. The father acknowledged substance abuse and mental-health problems affecting his parenting but failed to pursue the services designed to address them. He also testified that he could “barely take care of” himself. Given C.T.’s young age, the prolonged absence of visitation, and her need for permanence, the circuit court was not required to impose a less restrictive alternative before terminating parental rights.
Precedents Cited
In re K.S.
This case supplied the governing standard of review: abuse of discretion for substantive rulings, clear error for factual findings, and de novo review for legal questions.
In re C.L.
The Court relied on this precedent for the circuit court’s inherent authority to compel DHS to amend a petition when evidence gives reasonable cause to believe that additional abuse or neglect occurred. It also establishes that adjudication must be reopened after amendment so the new allegations can be heard.
In re Lilith H.
This decision was the underlying authority quoted in In re C.L.. It recognizes that circuit courts are not passive recipients of DHS pleadings; they may require amendment when evidence reveals additional abuse or neglect.
In re Z.S.-1
This precedent defines a valid adjudicatory stipulation under Rule 26(a). It must include both facts supporting court involvement and identification of the problems to be addressed at disposition. The father’s admissions satisfied both elements.
Noble v. W. Va. Dep't of Motor Vehicles and Shaffer v. Acme Limestone Co.
These cases state the preservation rule that nonjurisdictional issues raised for the first time on appeal ordinarily will not be considered. Because the father agreed to the domestic-violence service requirement and did not object below, the appellate challenge was waived.
In re Lacey P.
This case confirms that a circuit court may terminate an improvement period when it is not satisfied that the parent is making the progress necessary to correct the conditions of abuse or neglect.
In re Kristin Y. and In re R.J.M.
These decisions establish that termination of parental rights may occur without first employing less restrictive alternatives when there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions can be substantially corrected and termination is necessary for the child’s welfare.
In re K.L.
The Court cited this case for the proposition that failure to participate in an improvement period is a statutorily recognized basis regularly supporting termination of parental rights.
Complex Concepts Simplified
- Adjudication
- The stage at which the court determines whether a child was abused or neglected and whether a parent is legally responsible.
- Disposition
- The later stage at which the court decides the appropriate remedy, including reunification efforts, guardianship, or termination of parental rights.
- Improvement period
- A court-supervised opportunity for a parent to correct the conditions that led to abuse or neglect. It is conditional, not an entitlement.
- Stipulation
- A voluntary admission or agreement to facts. In abuse-and-neglect proceedings, it must explain both why court intervention is necessary and what parental deficiencies must be corrected.
- Multidisciplinary team (“MDT”)
- A group of professionals and parties who coordinate the case plan and services intended to protect the child and address family problems.
- No reasonable likelihood of substantial correction
- A finding that the parent is unlikely to remedy the harmful conditions soon enough to meet the child’s safety and permanency needs.
- Less restrictive disposition
- An alternative short of terminating parental rights, such as temporary custody arrangements or continued services. A court need not use such an alternative when statutory grounds for termination are established.
- Waiver
- The loss of an appellate argument because the party agreed to the matter or failed to object in the circuit court.
Impact
In re C.T. reinforces several practical rules for West Virginia abuse-and-neglect proceedings:
- Courts may require DHS to amend a petition when adjudicatory evidence reveals additional grounds of abuse or neglect.
- Due process is protected by giving the parent written notice and reopening adjudication on the added allegations.
- A written stipulation may support adjudication when it identifies concrete parenting failures and the problems requiring remediation.
- Parents must object to disputed case-plan terms in the circuit court; signing and accepting those terms may waive later challenges.
- Attendance without meaningful effort may be treated as nonparticipation.
- A parent’s substance abuse or mental-health diagnosis is not, by itself, the decisive consideration. The critical questions are its effect on parenting and whether the parent follows through with appropriate treatment.
- The child’s need for safety and permanency may justify immediate termination once the statutory findings are established.
Conclusion
The decision confirms that abuse-and-neglect proceedings may adapt when evidence reveals previously unpleaded parental misconduct, provided the petition is amended and adjudication is reopened. It also emphasizes that an improvement period requires active, sustained participation by the parent.
Because J.T. admitted conditions impairing his parenting, agreed to corrective services, and then failed to participate meaningfully in nearly every component of the case plan, the circuit court properly found that the neglect could not be corrected in the near future. C.T.’s welfare and need for permanency therefore supported termination of his parental rights without a less restrictive alternative.