In re P.M.: Necessity of Terminating Parental Rights in Cases of Chronic Parental Absence and Violent Criminal Conduct

Introduction

In In re P.M. (No. 24-215, W. Va. May 6, 2025), the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed a Harrison County circuit court’s decision to terminate the parental and custodial rights of J.S., the father of a three-year-old child, P.M. The West Virginia Department of Human Services (DHS) had filed an abuse and neglect petition when the father was incarcerated and unable to protect the child from the mother’s substance abuse and an overdose incident that left the child exposed and unsupervised. On appeal, the father contended that termination was unnecessary because the mother had regained custody. The high court rejected that argument, emphasizing that the father’s prolonged absence, violent criminal history, and lack of any reasonable prospect for rehabilitation mandated termination to secure the child’s welfare and permanency.

Summary of the Judgment

1. July 2022: DHS filed a neglect petition based on the father’s incarceration, the mother’s overdose (during which P.M. was found naked and unattended), and the father’s failure to provide support.

2. January 2023 Adjudication: The circuit court found J.S. guilty of neglect. Evidence included his burglary conviction for breaking into the mother’s home with a knife and attacking her in the child’s presence, multiple DUI convictions, parole violations, and a projected release date in 2029.

3. Improvement Period Efforts: Upon a brief post-release hearing in late 2023, J.S. expressed willingness to engage in services but soon ceased drug screening and was re-incarcerated in January 2024 for DUI and other offenses.

4. March 2024 Disposition: The court denied his motion for an improvement period, found no reasonable likelihood of correction, and terminated his rights under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6). It also prohibited any contact with P.M. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that permanent stability and the child’s welfare outweighed the father’s speculative prospects of rehabilitation—even though the mother was fit.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re Emily, 208 W. Va. 325 (2000): Established that the fitness of one parent does not automatically preserve the unfit parent’s rights where the latter’s conduct endangered the child and is unlikely to improve.
In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496 (1980): Emphasized that children require “permanency, security, stability and continuity,” and that courts may terminate without first using less restrictive alternatives if there is no reasonable prospect for correcting neglect.
In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89 (2011): Held that young children are particularly vulnerable to instability, underscoring the paramount need for permanency.
In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558 (2011): Reaffirmed that termination may proceed without pursuing interim measures when neglect conditions cannot be substantially corrected.
In re Isaiah A., 228 W. Va. 176 (2010): Stressed the entitlement of children to permanency to the greatest degree possible.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court applied a two-step standard: (1) review of the circuit court’s factual findings for clear error; (2) de novo review of legal conclusions. It focused solely on whether termination was “necessary for the child’s welfare.” Although the mother regained fitness, the father’s repeated and violent criminal behavior—particularly the burglary and assault in the child’s presence—and his long-term incarceration created chronic instability and a complete absence of any parent–child relationship. Pursuant to W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6), termination was proper where the parent posed an ongoing threat and had no reasonable likelihood of correcting neglectful conditions.

Impact

This decision solidifies that West Virginia courts will look beyond the mere fitness of one parent and examine each parent’s individual conduct and capacity to provide permanency. It clarifies that:

Chronic absence due to incarceration is ground for termination when it deprives a child of a stable relationship.
Violent criminal acts against a co-parent, particularly in the child’s presence, weigh heavily against custodial rights.
Speculative future rehabilitation cannot overcome a demonstrated, long-standing pattern of criminality and neglect.

Family law practitioners and child welfare agencies will rely on In re P.M. to advocate for termination where an absent parent’s conduct undermines a child’s need for permanence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Adjudication Hearing: The court determines whether allegations of abuse or neglect are proven.
Dispositional Hearing: The court decides the remedial steps, which may include termination of parental rights.
Improvement Period: A court-ordered timeframe for a parent to remedy neglect issues through services like drug screening.
Reasonable Likelihood of Correction: A statutory benchmark assessing whether a parent can realistically improve their behavior in the near future.
Permanency Plan: The long-term care arrangement deemed best for the child—here, continuation with the mother.

Conclusion

In re P.M. is a landmark affirmation that West Virginia’s child welfare system prioritizes a child’s right to permanency and safety over speculative parental rehabilitation. By upholding termination based on repeated incarceration, violent criminal conduct, and lack of any meaningful parent–child bond, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that the welfare of vulnerable young children demands more than intermittent parental involvement—it demands stability, security, and unwavering commitment.