Oral Requests Are Not Enough: West Virginia Reaffirms Written-Motion Requirement for Additional Improvement Periods and Permits Direct Termination When No Reasonable Likelihood of Correction (In re G.A.)

Oral Requests Are Not Enough: West Virginia Reaffirms Written-Motion Requirement for Additional Improvement Periods and Permits Direct Termination When No Reasonable Likelihood of Correction (In re G.A.)

Introduction

In a memorandum decision issued on September 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the termination of the parental rights of A.A. to her child, G.A. The case arises out of a 2021 abuse and neglect petition initially filed in Virginia and then transferred to West Virginia pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) on inconvenient forum grounds. The central appellate issues were:

  • Whether the circuit court erred in denying the mother a “full” additional improvement period—either on the amended petition or post-disposition—when she made only an oral request; and
  • Whether the circuit court should have employed a less restrictive dispositional alternative instead of terminating parental rights.

The Court’s decision, though non-precedential in format (Rule 21 memorandum decision), meaningfully reinforces two points of West Virginia abuse-and-neglect practice: (1) a written motion is required to obtain an improvement period under West Virginia Code § 49-4-610—an oral request is insufficient—and (2) when the statutory findings under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) are made (no reasonable likelihood of correction and necessity for the child’s welfare), a circuit court may terminate parental rights without first exhausting less restrictive alternatives.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court affirmed the Mercer County Circuit Court’s order terminating A.A.’s parental rights to G.A. The Court held:

  • The mother’s request for a “full” additional improvement period failed because she did not file a written motion, as required by State ex rel. P.G.-1 v. Wilson, 247 W. Va. 235, 878 S.E.2d 730 (2021) and West Virginia Code § 49-4-610. Her reliance on an oral request was inadequate, and she also failed to provide record citations demonstrating a written motion, in violation of Rule 10(c)(7) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
  • Termination was proper under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) because there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future, and termination was necessary for the welfare of the child. The Court relied on established law (In re Kristin Y. and In re R.J.M.) that less restrictive alternatives need not be employed when those statutory findings are made.

Case Background

The abuse and neglect proceedings originated from a New Year’s Eve 2020–2021 incident in which six-month-old G.A. was left alone in a motel room while the parents reportedly “partied.” The mother was found highly intoxicated, admitting to marijuana, alcohol, and Xanax use; the father was later arrested on myriad charges. The petition was initially filed in Virginia and transferred to West Virginia under the UCCJEA (W. Va. Code § 48-20-207(a)).

The mother stipulated to adjudication as an abusive and neglectful parent as to G.A. and was granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period. In December 2021, DHS filed an amended petition alleging homelessness and continued substance use; the record documented positive screens for alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine in September 2021. DHS reported sporadic service participation, an eight-month gap in drug screening, and no improvement beyond obtaining housing. The circuit court took under advisement the mother’s oral request for an improvement period on the amended petition.

In December 2023, the mother’s estranged boyfriend murdered her oldest child, N.C., and then committed suicide. The tragedy occurred at the placement home of N.C. and M.C. Neither G.A. nor A.A. were present. The dispositional hearing for G.A. occurred in June 2024.

DHS witnesses testified that the mother did not successfully complete her improvement period: she did not complete treatment, lacked consistent employment, did not meaningfully participate in the case plan, and had a July 2022 DUI arrest while on probation for Virginia criminal matters. DHS further noted the lack of a strong bond—G.A. had not been in A.A.’s custody since six months old.

The mother testified that she had begun counseling, obtained one month of employment, and started medication-assisted treatment. She admitted noncompliance with drug screening and continued marijuana use. She attributed noncompliance to a violent relationship with the now-deceased boyfriend. Notably, she admitted that she was “not ready” to care for the children and requested only termination of custodial/guardianship rights rather than full termination.

The circuit court found that over more than three years the mother had not addressed the precipitating issues, that she herself conceded she was not ready, and that there was no reasonable likelihood of correction in the near future. The court also found termination necessary for G.A.’s welfare and terminated parental rights. The father’s rights were terminated as well; the permanency plan is adoption in the current placement.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

  • Standard of Review: Syllabus point 1, In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) — Reviewing factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.
  • Written-Motion Requirement for Improvement Periods: State ex rel. P.G.-1 v. Wilson, 247 W. Va. 235, 878 S.E.2d 730 (2021), Syl. Pt. 4 (in part) — A circuit court may not grant an improvement period under W. Va. Code § 49-4-610 unless the respondent files a written motion requesting it.
  • Termination Without Less Restrictive Alternatives: In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011), Syl. Pt. 5 (in part) (quoting In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980)) — When there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse/neglect can be substantially corrected, termination may be employed without the use of less restrictive alternatives.
  • Statutory Grounds for Termination: W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) — Allows termination when (i) no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction in the near future and (ii) termination is necessary for the child’s welfare; § 49-4-604(d)(3) — Factors defining “no reasonable likelihood,” including failure to respond to or follow through with a reasonable case plan or other rehabilitative efforts.
  • Improvement Period Statute: W. Va. Code § 49-4-610 — Governs pre-adjudicatory, post-adjudicatory, and post-dispositional improvement periods and the prerequisites for granting them.
  • Appellate Briefing Requirement: W. Va. R. App. P. 10(c)(7) — Requires specific record citations pinpointing how issues were raised below; failure to comply undermines appellate review.
  • Memorandum Decision Authority: W. Va. R. App. P. 21 — Permits affirmance by memorandum decision without oral argument.
  • UCCJEA Transfer: W. Va. Code § 48-20-207(a) — Inconvenient forum transfer from Virginia to West Virginia, noted as proper and uncontested.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis proceeded on two independent but mutually reinforcing tracks: procedural compliance regarding improvement periods and substantive sufficiency regarding termination.

1) Written motion required for additional improvement periods

The mother argued that the circuit court should have granted her a “full” additional improvement period—either tied to the amended petition (which added two older children) or as a post-dispositional improvement period. The Court rejected this argument for two reasons:

  • First, the mother did not file a written motion requesting an additional improvement period. Under State ex rel. P.G.-1 v. Wilson and W. Va. Code § 49-4-610, a circuit court “may not grant” an improvement period absent a written motion. An oral request at a hearing does not satisfy the statute or Wilson’s clear directive.
  • Second, the appellate briefing failed to cite to any portion of the record demonstrating that the issue was properly presented by a written motion below, in violation of Rule 10(c)(7). This briefing failure independently undermined the assignment of error.

The opinion thus underscores that the Wilson written-motion requirement applies equally to efforts to secure additional improvement periods associated with amended petitions and to requests for post-dispositional improvement periods. Courts are not obliged—and indeed are prohibited—to grant such periods absent a written filing.

2) Direct termination permissible where statutory findings are met

On the merits, the Court upheld termination because the record supported both statutory predicates under § 49-4-604(c)(6):

  • No reasonable likelihood of substantial correction in the near future: The mother admitted noncompliance with the case plan; the record documented sporadic service participation over more than three years, failure to complete substance abuse and mental health treatment, continued marijuana use, periods without drug screening, and instability in employment and legal status (including a 2022 DUI and probation in Virginia). She further acknowledged that she was “not ready” to resume care. These facts fit § 49-4-604(d)(3)’s definition of “no reasonable likelihood,” including a demonstrated inability to solve the underlying problems and failure to follow through with a reasonable family case plan.
  • Necessity for the child’s welfare: G.A. had been out of the mother’s custody since infancy and lacked a strong bond with her; stability and permanency favored adoption in the current placement.

In line with In re Kristin Y. and In re R.J.M., once these findings are established, the circuit court may terminate parental rights without cycling through less restrictive alternatives such as guardianship or custodial dispositions. The mother’s request to terminate only “custodial and guardianship rights” therefore did not bar full termination.

Impact and Practice Implications

For abuse-and-neglect practice

  • Written-motion rigor: Practitioners should treat the Wilson written-motion requirement as absolute. Oral requests for additional, extended, or post-dispositional improvement periods are legally insufficient. Counsel must:
    • File a written motion specifying the statutory basis (pre-, post-adjudicatory, or post-dispositional),
    • Articulate how the parent will fully participate, and
    • Attach or reference a concrete service plan demonstrating feasibility and timelines.
  • Appellate preservation: Rule 10(c)(7) requires pinpoint record citations showing “when and how” the issue was raised below. Failure to cite the docket entry of the written motion (or to include it in the appendix) is outcome-determinative. Build a meticulous record and cite it.
  • Amended petitions don’t reset the clock: Adding children by amended petition does not automatically entitle a parent to a new improvement period. An additional period requires a written motion and a showing that the statutory criteria are met. The Court’s application signals that time elapsed and prior noncompliance weigh heavily against serial improvement periods.
  • Direct termination when warranted: When § 49-4-604(c)(6) findings are supported, courts may terminate without first trying guardianship or custodial alternatives. The child’s need for permanency—especially after years outside the parent’s care—carries significant weight.
  • Tragic intervening events: The heartbreaking homicide of an older child did not alter the legal analysis as to G.A. Absent evidence that such events catalyzed sustained, demonstrable correction of conditions, the statutory framework and child-specific analysis control.

For child welfare policy and permanency

  • Stability over prolonged uncertainty: The decision emphasizes permanency after protracted noncompliance. Children who have spent nearly their entire lives outside a parent’s custody should not remain in limbo absent compelling evidence of near-term correction.
  • Bond and welfare: Although not a standalone statutory ground, the lack of a strong bond and long separation can support the “necessary for welfare” determination, especially when adoption is viable in a stable placement.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Improvement period: A court-approved span during which a parent must engage in services (e.g., treatment, counseling, parenting education) to remedy abuse/neglect conditions. They come in three types—pre-adjudicatory, post-adjudicatory, and post-dispositional—and are discretionary. In West Virginia, you must file a written motion to obtain one, and you must show likelihood of full participation. They are not automatic or guaranteed.
  • “No reasonable likelihood” standard: A statutory finding that the parent cannot substantially correct the conditions of abuse/neglect in the near future. Indicators include persistent noncompliance with the case plan, continued substance misuse, failure to complete treatment, or inability to maintain safe housing and stability.
  • Less restrictive alternatives: Dispositions short of full termination (e.g., placement with relatives, legal guardianship). Courts must consider these but are not required to adopt them if the statutory termination findings are met and termination is necessary for the child’s welfare.
  • Rule 10(c)(7) record-citation requirement: On appeal, the brief must cite exact pages in the appendix showing how issues were presented to the circuit court. Without those citations, the appellate court may deem arguments inadequately presented or noncompliant.
  • Memorandum decision (Rule 21): A streamlined appellate decision issued without oral argument when the law is settled and the facts do not warrant a published opinion. Although concise, it applies existing law to resolve the parties’ dispute.
  • UCCJEA inconvenient forum transfer: The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act allows a court to cede jurisdiction to another state that is better positioned to decide the case. Here, the case was transferred from Virginia to West Virginia, and the transfer was noted as proper.

What This Decision Adds

While the Court did not announce a new rule, it concretely applies and reinforces existing law in two practical ways:

  • It confirms that the written-motion requirement (Wilson) squarely governs attempts to secure additional improvement periods tied to amended petitions and post-dispositional stages; oral requests are insufficient.
  • It reiterates that, once § 49-4-604(c)(6) findings are supported, circuit courts may proceed directly to termination without employing less restrictive alternatives—even when a parent has made some progress or requests a partial termination (e.g., only custodial/guardianship rights).

Conclusion

In re G.A. underscores the procedural and substantive guardrails of West Virginia’s abuse-and-neglect system. Procedurally, practitioners must file written motions to obtain any improvement period—including additional or post-dispositional ones—and must meticulously cite the record on appeal. Substantively, where the parent has not meaningfully addressed core safety concerns over an extended period and the statutory findings are present, termination is a lawful and appropriate endpoint without first adopting less restrictive alternatives. The decision reaffirms the system’s emphasis on child safety, timely permanency, and adherence to statutory and procedural requirements.

Citation: In re G.A., No. 24-533 (W. Va. Sept. 30, 2025) (memorandum decision) — affirming the Mercer County Circuit Court’s September 4, 2024, order terminating parental rights.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court of West Virginia

Comments