In re N.T.: Notice-of-Pregnancy Abandonment as an Aggravated Circumstance Eliminating DHS Reasonable-Efforts Duties

1. Introduction

Case: In re N.T. (consolidated appeals Nos. 24-729 and 25-239), Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (memorandum decision), issued January 29, 2026.

Parties: Petitioner Father D.H. (appealing), West Virginia Department of Human Services (“DHS”), and the child N.T. (represented by a guardian ad litem).

Background: DHS initially filed an abuse and neglect petition against the mother in March 2024. The father was not identified until May 2024 when the mother voluntarily relinquished and named D.H. A July 2024 paternity test confirmed D.H. as the father. After a contested adjudication, the circuit court found D.H. neglected the child by abandonment and later terminated his parental rights.

Key issues: (1) whether DHS proved abandonment by clear and convincing evidence; (2) whether abandonment automatically constitutes “aggravated circumstances”; (3) whether DHS and the circuit court were required to provide/ensure reunification services (notably therapeutic visitation); and (4) whether termination satisfied West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6).

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed both the adjudicatory order (November 13, 2024) and the dispositional order terminating the father’s parental, custodial, and guardianship rights (March 18, 2025).

The Court held that clear and convincing evidence supported abandonment where the father admitted he was told of the pregnancy but made no meaningful effort to confirm the pregnancy, maintain contact, or later inquire whether a child was born—resulting in a total absence from the child’s life for nearly a decade. The Court further held that abandonment constitutes an “aggravated circumstance” under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(7)(A), relieving DHS of the obligation to make reasonable efforts to preserve the family. Finally, the Court upheld termination under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) because abandonment statutorily establishes “no reasonable likelihood” of correction, the father failed to acknowledge his abandonment, and termination was necessary for the child’s welfare given the child’s need for stability and the therapist’s testimony.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

Standards of Review and Evidentiary Burdens

  • Syl. Pt. 1, In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011): The Court applied clear-error review to factual findings and de novo review to legal conclusions—framing the deference given to the circuit court’s credibility determinations (mother more credible than father).
  • Syl. Pt. 1, In re S.C., 168 W. Va. 366, 284 S.E.2d 867 (1981): Used to reject the father’s attempt to impose a rigid evidentiary “mode” on DHS; the Court emphasized DHS must prove conditions at petition filing by clear and convincing evidence, but the statute does not mandate a particular type of proof.

Briefing Defaults and Issue Waiver

  • Re: Filings That Do Not Comply With the Rules of Appellate Procedure (Administrative Order entered December 10, 2012): The Court relied on this order to justify disregarding inadequately supported assignments of error (no legal authority or application).
  • State v. White, 228 W. Va. 530, 541 n.9, 722 S.E.2d 566, 577 n.9 (2011); State v. Larry A.H., 230 W. Va. 709, 716, 742 S.E.2d 125, 132 (2013); State v. LaRock, 196 W. Va. 294, 302, 470 S.E.2d 613, 621 (1996): Cited for the principle that poorly briefed issues—especially those lacking pertinent authority—are not considered on appeal.
  • Tudor's Biscuit World of Am. v. Critchley, 229 W. Va. 396, 401-02, 729 S.E.2d 231, 236-37 (2012); Jacquelyn F. v. Andrea R., No. 16-0585, 2017 WL 2608425, at *1 n.2 (W. Va. June 16, 2017) (memorandum decision): Invoked to consolidate/restated assignments of error, illustrating the Court’s management of sprawling appellate claims.

Abandonment in Abuse/Neglect (Not Adoption) and Its Proof

  • In re T.M., No. 19-0779, 2020 WL 2043308, at *3 n.4 (W. Va. Apr. 28, 2020) (memorandum decision); In re A.L., No. 19-0646, 2020 WL 1674037, at *3 n.5 (W. Va. Apr. 6, 2020) (memorandum decision); In re A.B., No. 18-1147, 2019 WL 245277, at *3 (W. Va. Jun. 12, 2019) (memorandum decision): These cases supported the Court’s refusal to import West Virginia Code § 48-22-306 (adoption presumption of abandonment) into abuse and neglect proceedings.
  • In re A.B., 2019 WL 245277, at *3: Quoted for the proposition that “total abdication of any responsibility” is definitive proof of a settled purpose to forgo parental duties—directly anchoring the Court’s view that years of non-involvement after notice is abandonment.
  • In re C.M.-1, 247 W. Va. 744, 749, 885 S.E.2d 875, 880 (2023) (quoting In re R.R., No. 17-0930, 2018 WL 1251845, at *3 (W. Va. March 12, 2018) (memorandum decision)): Used to emphasize that even non-custodial parents must show interest in welfare and provide support; failure is strong evidence of abandonment.

Aggravated Circumstances and Reasonable Efforts

  • In re K.V., 251 W. Va. 418, -- n.10, 914 S.E.2d 517, 525 n.10 (2025): Clarified that “aggravated circumstances” is a statutory set of situations under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(7)(A) that can relieve DHS of reasonable-efforts obligations, expressly including abandonment—supporting the Court’s straightforward statutory application.

Termination, Acknowledgment of Abuse/Neglect, and Child Welfare

  • In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44, 55, 743 S.E.2d 352, 363 (2013): Cited for the requirement that a parent must recognize and acknowledge abusive/neglectful conduct to remedy it—supporting the finding that the father’s minimization/blame-shifting showed incapacity to correct.
  • In re A.P., 245 W. Va. 248, 255, 858 S.E.2d 873, 880 (2021): Used to interpret the “when necessary for the welfare of the child” prong as focused on the child’s physical and emotional well-being—supporting reliance on therapist testimony and permanency needs.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

(a) Adjudication for Abandonment Despite Father’s Claimed Lack of “Proof”

The father’s core defense was that he did not know a child existed because he never received “proof” of pregnancy and lacked identifying information to locate the mother later. The Court rejected this as inconsistent with the statutory definition and the factual record.

Applying West Virginia Code § 49-1-201, the Court treated abandonment as conduct demonstrating a settled purpose to forgo parental duties. The key factual predicate was the father’s admission that he was told the mother was pregnant. From that point, his continued refusal to meet, obtain basic identifying information, stay in contact, or follow up at the expected time of birth supported the inference of a settled purpose to avoid parental responsibility. The circuit court’s credibility finding (mother more credible) was pivotal and insulated by the clear-error standard.

The Court also implicitly rejected the father’s proposed rule that abandonment “presupposes that a child exists” in a way that would excuse willful ignorance after notice of pregnancy. Instead, it treated notice of likely parenthood as triggering a duty of reasonable inquiry and basic responsibility, such that deliberate non-inquiry can evidence abandonment.

(b) Abandonment as “Aggravated Circumstances” (and No Special Request Required)

The father argued aggravated circumstances were not specifically litigated or requested. The Court treated the question as one of plain statutory application: West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(7)(A) expressly lists “abandonment” among aggravated circumstances. Because the petition alleged abandonment and the adjudication found abandonment, the “aggravated circumstances” consequence followed.

(c) Reasonable Efforts and Services (Therapeutic Visitation)

The Court reasoned in two steps. First, once aggravated circumstances (abandonment) were found, DHS was statutorily relieved from making reasonable efforts to preserve the family under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(7)(A). Second, even if viewed through a reasonableness lens, the Court credited the child’s therapist’s recommendation that therapeutic visitation was not in the child’s best interest given the child’s emotional shutdown and expressed unwillingness.

Notably, the Court framed the father’s requested remedy as an attempt to create an initial relationship (“unify”) rather than restore an existing parent-child relationship (“reunify”), aligning services and best-interest determinations with the child’s lived reality and emotional needs.

(d) Termination Under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6)

The Court relied heavily on statutory structure. Under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6), termination requires (1) no reasonable likelihood the conditions can be substantially corrected soon and (2) necessity for the child’s welfare. Under § 49-4-604(d)(4), abandonment itself establishes “no reasonable likelihood” of correction. Beyond that statutory shortcut, the Court emphasized the father’s failure to genuinely acknowledge abandonment (invoking In re Timber M.), which supported the finding of inadequate capacity to solve the neglect problem.

On welfare, the Court credited expert testimony about the child’s need for stability, the child’s bond with the kinship placement, and the risk of harm from forcing contact against the child’s expressed wishes (consistent with In re A.P.’s focus on emotional well-being).

3.3. Impact

  • Abandonment can be proven by “willful ignorance” after notice of pregnancy: The decision reinforces that a parent cannot neutralize abandonment by demanding “proof” and then disengaging. Notice triggers a duty to take basic, reasonable steps to determine whether a child exists and to provide support if so; failure can evidence a settled purpose to forgo parental responsibilities.
  • Aggravated circumstances consequences may flow directly from an abandonment adjudication: Litigants should expect that, once abandonment is found, DHS may be relieved of reasonable-efforts obligations under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(7)(A) without a separate evidentiary “mini-trial” on aggravated circumstances.
  • Therapeutic visitation is not automatic and may be foreclosed by best interests: Even where a parent seeks services, child-focused clinical evidence can justify denial—especially where visitation would be experienced as destabilizing or coercive.
  • Fitness in the abstract is not dispositive: A “fit parent” opinion that is not child-specific did not overcome abandonment, lack of acknowledgment, and welfare concerns. The case underscores that termination analysis in abuse/neglect is not merely a home-safety inquiry; it is also about responsibility, insight, and the child’s emotional stability.
  • Appellate practice: The decision is also a warning that failure to cite and apply controlling authority can lead to forfeiture of appellate issues under Rule 10(c)(7).

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

“Clear and convincing evidence”
A higher burden than “more likely than not.” The evidence must produce a firm belief in the truth of the allegation (here, abandonment/neglect).
“Abandonment” (West Virginia Code § 49-1-201)
Not merely physical absence; it is conduct showing a settled decision to give up parental duties—such as failing to inquire, support, or show interest in a child’s welfare over an extended period.
“Aggravated circumstances” (West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(7)(A))
Statutorily defined serious situations (including abandonment) where the court can relieve DHS of providing reunification-type services (“reasonable efforts to preserve the family”).
“Reasonable efforts”
Services DHS typically must provide to try to keep or reunify a family (e.g., parenting classes, visitation, therapy referrals). If aggravated circumstances are found, this duty may be reduced or eliminated by statute.
Termination test (West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6))
The court must find both (1) no reasonable likelihood of correcting the neglect/abuse soon and (2) termination is necessary for the child’s welfare—often driven by the child’s need for safety, stability, and permanency.

5. Conclusion

In re N.T. affirms a robust application of West Virginia’s abandonment framework: when a putative father receives notice of pregnancy yet deliberately disengages for years, a court may find abandonment by clear and convincing evidence, treat it as an aggravated circumstance relieving DHS of reasonable-efforts obligations, and terminate parental rights where the parent lacks acknowledgment and the child’s welfare demands permanency. The decision also highlights the primacy of child-centered evidence—particularly therapeutic testimony—over an adult-focused narrative of belated willingness to parent.