Parental Rights May Be Terminated Without Further Services When a Parent Fails to Participate or Request an Improvement Period in Writing

Introduction

This abuse-and-neglect appeal arose from the termination of V.H.’s parental rights to five children. The West Virginia Department of Human Services (“DHS”) alleged that the parents maintained an unsafe and unsanitary home, failed to ensure the children’s hygiene, and educationally neglected three children through repeated school absences.

The principal questions were whether the circuit court should have given the mother more time to participate in services, granted an improvement period, or selected a less restrictive disposition such as guardianship. The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed termination because the mother never participated in the offered services, did not file the written motion required for an improvement period, and failed to acknowledge the problems that caused the children’s removal.

Factual and Procedural Background

• The home was filled with trash and clutter and smelled strongly of cat urine and kerosene.
• Loose ammunition and knives were accessible to the children.
• Some children attended school with poor hygiene.
• R.G., G.G., and B.G. had extensive absences, and the parents had multiple truancy convictions.
• The mother was ordered to participate in parenting and adult-life-skills education, drug screening, and supervised visitation.
• She tested positive for marijuana after the preliminary and adjudicatory hearings; a later specimen was diluted.
• Despite verified contact information and repeated outreach, she did not participate in any service during the proceedings.

At adjudication, the circuit court found that the mother abused and neglected the children through unsafe housing, unsanitary conditions, inadequate hygiene, and educational neglect. Although DHS sought to discontinue services because of noncompliance, the court allowed services to continue for two additional weeks and expressly warned that they would end if the parents did not participate.

By disposition, the mother still had not engaged in any service. The circuit court found that the parents had made no meaningful effort to remedy the conditions and had not acknowledged that any problems existed. It therefore concluded that there was no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction in the near future and that termination was necessary for the children’s welfare.

Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the September 3, 2025 dispositional order. It rejected the mother’s request for additional time because she had received ample opportunity to participate but failed to attend even one service.

The Court also held that she was not entitled to an improvement period because the record did not show that she filed the statutorily required written motion. Her persistent nonparticipation and failure to acknowledge the underlying problems supported the finding that the conditions of abuse and neglect could not be substantially corrected in the near future.

Because termination was necessary for the children’s welfare, the circuit court was not required to impose a less restrictive alternative first. The Court additionally rejected guardianship as a preferred disposition, emphasizing West Virginia’s preference for adoption as the permanent out-of-home placement.

Analysis

Standard of Review

Relying on Syllabus Point 1 of In re K.S., the Court reviewed the circuit court’s substantive rulings for abuse of discretion, its factual findings for clear error, and legal questions de novo. This framework gave appropriate deference to the circuit court’s findings about the mother’s conduct while allowing independent review of the statutory requirements governing improvement periods and termination.

Precedents Cited

In re K.S.

In re K.S. supplied the controlling appellate standard of review. Its importance was procedural: the Supreme Court did not reweigh evidence but considered whether the circuit court’s findings were clearly erroneous and whether termination reflected an abuse of discretion or legal error.

State ex rel. P.G.-1 v. Wilson

This precedent establishes that a circuit court may not grant an improvement period under West Virginia Code § 49-4-610 unless the respondent files a written motion requesting one. Because the mother identified no written motion in the record, she was not legally entitled to such relief. An oral request for “additional time” at disposition did not satisfy that prerequisite.

In re Timber M. and In re Charity H.

In re Timber M., quoting In re Charity H., states that failure to acknowledge the existence of a problem makes the problem untreatable. The circuit court found that the mother did not recognize any conditions requiring correction. That finding was especially significant because remedial services cannot succeed when a parent denies the need for change.

In re Kristin Y. and In re R.J.M.

These cases establish that termination may be ordered without first employing less restrictive alternatives when there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse or neglect can be substantially corrected. The mother’s complete nonparticipation demonstrated an inadequate capacity or willingness to remedy the conditions, making an intermediate disposition unnecessary.

In re N.H. and State v. Michael M.

These precedents recognize adoption as the preferred permanent out-of-home placement. They defeated the mother’s contention that guardianship should have been selected merely because it was less restrictive. Once reunification was not reasonably achievable and termination served the children’s best interests, the law favored the greater permanency offered by adoption.

Legal Reasoning

1. No entitlement to an improvement period

An improvement period is not automatic. It requires a written request and generally a showing that the parent is likely to participate. The mother satisfied neither consideration: the record contained no written motion, and her conduct showed total nonparticipation despite repeated opportunities.

2. Ample opportunity had already been provided

The mother was ordered to begin services at the preliminary hearing. At adjudication, the court verified the parties’ contact information, continued services for an additional two weeks, and expressly warned of the consequences of continued noncompliance. Service providers nevertheless received no response. The request for still more time therefore rested on a promise of future participation unsupported by past conduct.

3. No reasonable likelihood of substantial correction

West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(d) defines this condition to include circumstances in which an abusing adult demonstrates an inadequate capacity to solve the problems of abuse or neglect, either independently or with help. The mother’s refusal to engage with available assistance and her failure to acknowledge the problems supplied substantial evidence for this statutory finding.

4. Less restrictive alternatives were unnecessary

Under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6), parental rights may be terminated when there is no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction and termination is necessary for the child’s welfare. Once both findings were made, the circuit court did not have to try guardianship or another temporary arrangement before terminating parental rights.

5. The children’s need for permanency controlled

The mother did not directly challenge the finding that termination served the children’s best interests. Her proposed guardianship also conflicted with the preference for adoption, which offers a more complete and stable permanent placement. The permanency plan was adoption in the children’s existing placement.

Impact of the Decision

The decision reinforces several practical rules in West Virginia abuse-and-neglect proceedings:

• A parent must formally request an improvement period in writing; an informal request for additional time is insufficient.
• Courts may evaluate willingness to improve by examining actual participation rather than last-minute promises.
• Repeatedly ignoring service providers can demonstrate that the conditions will not be corrected in the near future.
• Failure to acknowledge abuse or neglect strongly undermines the prospect of successful treatment.
• Courts need not exhaust less restrictive alternatives when statutory grounds for termination are established.
• Guardianship is not presumptively preferable to termination when adoption is available and serves the children’s need for permanence.

As a memorandum decision, the opinion principally applies established statutory and precedential rules rather than announcing a new syllabus point. Its significance lies in the combined application of those rules to complete service noncompliance.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Adjudication

The stage at which a court decides whether a parent abused or neglected a child.

Disposition

The later stage at which the court determines the appropriate remedy, including reunification efforts, guardianship, or termination.

Improvement period

A court-supervised opportunity for a parent to correct the conditions of abuse or neglect. It must be requested in writing and is not granted automatically.

No reasonable likelihood of substantial correction

A finding that the parent is not capable or willing to remedy the harmful conditions within a time appropriate for the children’s needs.

Less restrictive alternative

A disposition short of terminating parental rights, such as guardianship. Such an alternative is not required when correction is unlikely and termination is necessary for the children.

Clear error

A deferential appellate standard under which factual findings generally remain intact unless the reviewing court is firmly convinced that a mistake occurred.

De novo review

Independent appellate review of a legal question, without deference to the lower court’s legal conclusion.

Conclusion

In re K.G., H.G., B.G., R.G., and G.G. confirms that additional time and remedial opportunities are not warranted where a parent never participates in services, fails to file a written request for an improvement period, and does not acknowledge the underlying neglect. When those circumstances establish that substantial correction is not reasonably likely, and termination serves the children’s welfare, a court may terminate parental rights without first imposing guardianship or another less restrictive disposition.