Persistent Denial After Prior Improvement Periods Establishes “No Reasonable Likelihood” and Supports Termination of Parental Rights

Introduction

In re E.L. and N.L. (W. Va. Jan. 29, 2026) is a memorandum decision in which the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the Circuit Court of Braxton County’s order terminating Mother A.L.’s parental rights to E.L. and N.L.. The case arose from a February 2024 abuse-and-neglect petition filed by the West Virginia Department of Human Services (“DHS”), alleging (1) substance abuse and (2) emotional abuse of the children.

The appeal presented two central issues: whether the evidence supported adjudication as an abusing and/or neglecting parent under the clear and convincing standard, and whether the evidence supported the dispositional finding that there was no reasonable likelihood Mother could substantially correct the conditions of abuse/neglect in the near future—making termination necessary to protect the children’s welfare.

A critical factual backdrop was Mother’s history: she previously faced two DHS petitions (2013 and 2018), was adjudicated, and successfully completed post-adjudicatory improvement periods—yet the same categories of concerns (particularly alcohol and family instability) resurfaced.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court affirmed. It held that the record contained clear and convincing evidence supporting adjudication based on (a) emotional abuse (children’s accounts corroborated by a CPS worker’s observations of distress) and (b) substance-related neglect (a notably high alcohol screen after a hearing, coupled with Mother’s prior alcohol-related adjudication).

The Court further held that termination was proper under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) because the circuit court had sufficient evidence to find (1) no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction in the near future under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(d) and (2) termination was necessary for the children’s welfare. Central to this conclusion were Mother’s continued denial/minimization, persistent blame-shifting, and failure to acknowledge the emotional abuse—despite extensive prior services.

The Court also declined to consider an unpreserved hearsay challenge, applying standard appellate waiver principles.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

  • Syl. Pt. 1, In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011)
    Role in decision: Provided the governing appellate standard of review: factual findings reviewed for clear error, legal conclusions de novo. This framing is outcome-significant in abuse-and-neglect appeals because the circuit court’s credibility determinations and fact-intensive findings typically receive substantial deference.
  • Syllabus Point 1, In Interest of S.C., 168 W.Va. 366, 284 S.E.2d 867 (1981), as quoted in Syl. Pt. 1, In re Joseph A., 199 W. Va. 438, 485 S.E.2d 176 (1997)
    Role in decision: Reinforced that W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(i) requires DHS to prove conditions existing at filing by clear and convincing evidence, but does not prescribe a particular “mode” of proof. This supported reliance on testimonial evidence and the CPS worker’s observations, rather than requiring any specific evidentiary form.
  • In re F.S., 233 W. Va. 538, 759 S.E.2d 769 (2014) (quoting Cramer v. W. Va. Dep't of Highways, 180 W. Va. 97, 375 S.E.2d 568 (1988))
    Role in decision: Clarified the meaning of “clear and convincing” as an intermediate burden—more than preponderance, less than beyond a reasonable doubt—supporting the Court’s conclusion that the children’s disclosures, visible distress, and alcohol screen could satisfy that burden.
  • Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W. Va. 381, 497 S.E.2d 531 (1997)
    Role in decision: Anchored deference to the circuit court’s credibility determinations. The Supreme Court relied on this principle to reject Mother’s claim that the children were “coached,” because the circuit court found her testimony “not credible.”
  • In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (2013) (quoting In re Charity H., 215 W. Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (2004))
    Role in decision: Supplied the doctrinal bridge from denial to disposition: “In order to remedy the abuse and/or neglect problem, the problem must first be acknowledged. Failure to acknowledge the existence of the problem . . . results in making the problem untreatable.” The Court used this to affirm the “no reasonable likelihood” finding where Mother denied emotional abuse, minimized prior conduct, and externalized blame despite receiving extensive prior services.
  • Noble v. W. Va. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 223 W. Va. 818, 679 S.E.2d 650 (2009) (quoting Shaffer v. Acme Limestone Co., Inc., 206 W. Va. 333, 524 S.E.2d 688 (1999))
    Role in decision: Provided the waiver rule: nonjurisdictional issues not raised below are generally not considered on appeal. This foreclosed Mother’s unpreserved hearsay argument.
  • In re E.R., No. 19-0443, 2020 WL 598259 (W. Va. Feb. 7, 2020) (memorandum decision)
    Role in decision: Reinforced that a party must contemporaneously object to preserve evidentiary issues, particularly hearsay objections, in abuse-and-neglect adjudications.

Legal Reasoning

  1. Adjudication: clear and convincing evidence of current conditions
    The Court applied W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(i) and concluded DHS met its burden through:
    • Emotional abuse evidence: children’s reports of constant yelling/name-calling; a CPS worker’s testimony that the children were visibly distressed and crying while recounting experiences; and a protective order obtained by the older child (not at issue on appeal but used as context that similar conduct was occurring).
    • Substance-related neglect evidence: the circuit court-ordered screen showing alcohol “over ten times” the cutoff, combined with Mother’s prior alcohol-abuse adjudication and her implausible explanation attributing the result to kidney/liver issues.
    The Supreme Court emphasized the circuit court’s credibility determination: Mother’s “coaching” theory was rejected as not credible, and Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C. barred appellate reweighing of that assessment.
  2. Disposition: “no reasonable likelihood” due to repeated non-remediation and non-acknowledgment
    Under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(d), “no reasonable likelihood” is shown where the adult demonstrates an inadequate capacity to solve the problems “on [her] own or with help.” The Court highlighted the circuit court’s findings that:
    • Mother had already received substantial services across two prior cases (counseling, parenting/anger management, screening) and yet the core harmful dynamics reappeared.
    • Mother continued to deny, minimize, or rationalize emotional abuse and to cast herself as the victim while blaming others (including the children).
    • Under In re Timber M. and In re Charity H., this failure to acknowledge the problem rendered it effectively untreatable—supporting denial of another improvement period and the “no reasonable likelihood” conclusion.
    The Court also noted Mother’s conduct during the case (attempting to purchase a firearm while subject to a DVPO) as reinforcing the circuit court’s assessment of ongoing risk and judgment failures relevant to child welfare.
  3. Termination as the least restrictive means necessary for welfare
    The Court affirmed termination under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) because the circuit court explicitly found both statutory predicates: no reasonable likelihood of correction and termination necessary for the children’s welfare, with “no less restrictive alternative” sufficient to protect them.
  4. Issue preservation and evidentiary objections
    The Court declined to reach Mother’s hearsay challenge because it was not timely preserved, relying on Noble v. W. Va. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, Shaffer v. Acme Limestone Co., Inc., and In re E.R..

Impact

Although issued as a memorandum decision, In re E.L. and N.L. consolidates several recurring, high-impact themes in West Virginia abuse-and-neglect practice:

  • Repeated cycles matter: successful completion of prior improvement periods does not preclude later termination where the same underlying behaviors recur and the court finds the parent did not truly benefit from services.
  • Denial is dispositive: consistent with In re Timber M., ongoing denial and blame-shifting can support a finding that conditions are not substantially correctable “in the near future,” particularly when the parent has already had multiple service opportunities.
  • Credibility deference is outcome-determinative: where the circuit court finds a parent not credible, appellate review is constrained by Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., underscoring the importance of record development, corroboration, and effective cross-examination at trial.
  • Preservation rules apply fully in abuse-and-neglect cases: the decision reiterates that evidentiary objections (including hearsay) must be contemporaneous or they are waived on appeal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • “Adjudication”: the stage where the court decides whether a parent is an “abusing and/or neglecting” parent based on conditions at the time the petition was filed.
  • “Clear and convincing evidence”: a medium-high proof level—stronger than “more likely than not,” but not as demanding as the criminal standard (“beyond a reasonable doubt”).
  • “No reasonable likelihood that conditions ... can be substantially corrected” (W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(d)): a legal conclusion that, even with help, the parent has shown insufficient capacity to fix the problems in a timeframe that meets the children’s needs.
  • “Post-adjudicatory improvement period”: a court-supervised opportunity (services, classes, treatment, screening) to correct the conditions after adjudication, sometimes requested again but not guaranteed—especially where the parent denies the problem or has already had substantial services.
  • “Least restrictive alternative”: the court must consider whether something short of termination can adequately protect the children; if not, termination may be ordered.
  • “Issue preservation/waiver”: to raise an error on appeal (like hearsay), the party generally must object at the time in the trial court, creating a record for review.

Conclusion

In re E.L. and N.L. affirms that when a parent—despite extensive prior services and prior improvement periods—continues to deny or minimize abusive conduct, shift blame, and fail to acknowledge core problems, a circuit court may properly find no reasonable likelihood of correction and order termination under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6). The decision also underscores two practical realities of West Virginia abuse-and-neglect litigation: credibility rulings are rarely disturbed on appeal, and unpreserved evidentiary issues are typically waived.