In re L.B.-1 and K.B.: Adjudication on Consistent Disclosures and Denial of Improvement Period for Non-Cooperation

Introduction

In the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia decision In re L.B.-1 and K.B., No. 24-339 (May 6, 2025), the Court upheld the termination of a mother’s parental rights after finding clear and convincing evidence of long-standing physical abuse, consistent child disclosures, and parental admissions. Petitioning mother L.B.-2 appealed the circuit court’s adjudication of abuse, its refusal to grant an improvement period, and the ultimate termination of her parental rights. The West Virginia Department of Human Services (“DHS”), through Child Protective Services (“CPS”), had removed fourteen-year-old L.B.-1 and twelve-year-old K.B. from their mother’s custody in late 2023. Following preliminary and adjudicatory hearings, the circuit court found the mother guilty of physical abuse, denied her request for a post-adjudicatory improvement period due to her uncooperative conduct, and terminated parental rights. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s memorandum decision affirmed the circuit court’s May 16, 2024 order on three core issues:

1. Adjudication of Abuse: The evidence—consistent disclosures by both children in forensic interviews, admissions by the mother, and her aggressive response during the CPS investigation—satisfied the “clear and convincing” standard under W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(i).
2. Denial of Improvement Period: The mother’s blanket refusal to participate in visitation or DHS-offered services demonstrated she could not “fully participate” in an improvement period (W. Va. Code § 49-4-610), justifying denial under In re Tonjia M., 212 W. Va. 443, 573 S.E.2d 354 (2002).
3. Termination of Parental Rights: Finding no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse could be corrected and determining termination to be in the children’s best interest, the circuit court properly invoked W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• In re F.S., 233 W. Va. 538, 759 S.E.2d 769 (2014): Established that the Department is not bound to a particular manner of proof so long as it meets the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard.
• In re Christina L., 194 W. Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (1995): Reaffirmed the flexibility of proof in abuse and neglect proceedings.
• In re Tonjia M., 212 W. Va. 443, 573 S.E.2d 354 (2002): Confirmed that trial courts have discretion to deny improvement periods when the parent’s likelihood of participation is remote.
• State v. Guthrie, 194 W. Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995): Clarified that appellate courts defer to the fact-finder’s credibility assessments.
• In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011): Articulated that factual findings are reviewed for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.

Legal Reasoning

1. Sufficiency of Evidence: Under W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(i), “[t]he court must determine whether the child is abused…based on conditions existing at the time of the filing of the petition and proven by clear and convincing evidence.” The Court emphasized that consistency—between separate forensic interviews, prior CPS disclosures, and the mother’s own admissions—fortified the children’s credibility and satisfied the evidentiary standard without requiring live testimony from every witness.

2. Discretion on Improvement Periods: W. Va. Code § 49-4-610(2)(B) and (3)(B) require a parent to prove “by clear and convincing evidence” that they are likely to “fully participate” in services. The mother’s categorical refusal to sign forms, attend visitation, or engage with DHS, even when offered, demonstrated a lack of good faith. In keeping with In re Tonjia M., the circuit court properly denied an improvement period where the prospect of rehabilitation was remote.

3. Best Interests and Termination: Pursuant to W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6), termination is authorized when no reasonable likelihood of correction exists and termination is necessary for the child’s welfare. The Court held that the record—spanning multiple CPS reports, CASA recommendations, and the mother’s own unpredictable behavior—amply supported this determination.

Impact

This decision reinforces two pivotal principles in West Virginia abuse and neglect jurisprudence:

1. Forensic interviews and consistent child disclosures, corroborated by parental admissions, constitute sufficient evidence under the “clear and convincing” standard, even if testimony is taken by recorded interview.
2. A court may deny an improvement period where a parent’s obstinate non-participation renders prospects for correction negligible.

Future abuse and neglect proceedings will likely invoke this decision when facing parents who challenge the credibility of forensic interviews and simultaneously refuse to engage in offered services.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Clear and Convincing Evidence: A higher burden than a preponderance of the evidence but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt; requires the fact-finder to be “highly probable” of the truth of allegations.
• Adjudicatory vs. Dispositional Hearing: An adjudicatory hearing determines whether abuse or neglect occurred; a dispositional hearing decides the remedy (e.g., improvement period, termination).
• Improvement Period: A court-ordered timeframe during which a parent participates in services (counseling, parenting classes) to correct abuse or neglect conditions.
• Termination of Parental Rights: A final, irrevocable order severing the legal parent-child relationship when reunification is not feasible.

Conclusion

In re L.B.-1 and K.B. crystallizes the application of West Virginia’s abuse and neglect statutes by affirming that:

• Consistent disclosures in child forensic interviews—when corroborated by admissions and investigated by CPS—satisfy the “clear and convincing” standard for abuse adjudication.
• Circuit courts maintain broad discretion to deny improvement periods when parental cooperation is demonstrably unlikely.
• Termination of parental rights is appropriate when the record shows no reasonable likelihood of correcting abusive conditions and aligns with the children’s best interests.

This decision will guide trial and appellate courts in weighing forensic evidence, assessing parental cooperation, and protecting children’s welfare in future proceedings.