Post-Termination Visitation Requires Best-Interests Findings Under Amended Rule 15(b)(2)(A), and Case-Plan “Compliance” Does Not Bar Termination Absent Real Parenting Change

1. Introduction

Case: In re W.L., K.L., and G.L. (W. Va. Sup. Ct. App. July 28, 2026) is a memorandum decision affirming the Circuit Court of Mineral County’s termination of Mother A.G.’s parental rights and its later denial of her request for post-termination visitation.

Background: The Department of Human Services (“DHS”) filed an abuse and neglect petition in August 2023 alleging (1) educational neglect of two children and (2) drug abuse after the youngest child tested positive for cocaine at birth. Mother stipulated to educational neglect and drug use by a caretaker affecting her ability to parent. She received extended improvement periods and completed many services, achieved negative drug screens, and obtained housing and employment.

Central issues: (a) whether termination was proper despite substantial service participation and claimed sobriety, where Mother continued to live with and support a father who continued to test positive for substances; and (b) whether the court erred in denying post-termination visitation in light of an asserted parent-child bond.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding there was “no reasonable likelihood” the conditions of neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future, because Mother’s continued cohabitation with the substance-using father demonstrated an inadequate capacity to solve the parenting problem—providing a safe, drug-free environment—even if she complied with discrete case-plan tasks. The Court also affirmed the denial of post-termination visitation, emphasizing the amended standard in Rule 15(b)(2)(A) and deferring to the circuit court’s weighing of the guardian ad litem’s recommendation, the children’s wishes, and other evidence.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

  • Syl. Pt. 1, In re K.S., -- W. Va. --, 930 S.E.2d 400- (2026)
    Role in the decision: Supplies the governing appellate standards of review in abuse and neglect appeals: abuse of discretion for dispositional rulings, clear error for factual findings, and de novo review for legal issues. The Court’s affirmance rests on applying deference to the circuit court’s fact-finding and discretionary determinations.
  • In re Jonathan Michael D., 194 W. Va. 20, 27, 459 S.E.2d 131, 138 (1995) (quoting W. Va. Dep't of Human Serv. v. Peggy F., 184 W. Va. 60, 64, 399 S.E.2d 460, 464 (1990))
    Rule emphasized: A parent may “compl[y] with specific aspects of the case plan” while failing “to improve . . . [the] overall attitude and approach to parenting.”
    Role in the decision: This principle is the core response to Mother’s “substantial compliance” argument. The Court treated the continued decision to live with a substance-using partner—and to discount or rationalize his positive screens—as evidence of unchanged protective capacity, even if Mother attended services, produced negative screens, and maintained employment/housing.
  • State v. Guthrie, 194 W. Va. 657, 669 n.9, 461 S.E.2d 163, 175 n.9 (1995)
    Rule emphasized: Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence; weighing is for the trier of fact.
    Role in the decision: Supports affirmance of the post-termination visitation ruling, where the circuit court credited the guardian ad litem, DHS, CASA, and (critically) the children’s expressed wishes over Mother’s request and claimed bond.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

A. Termination despite “substantial compliance”

The Court accepted that Mother achieved meaningful progress: negative drug screens since November 2024, near-completion of services, stable employment, and housing. But it treated the dispositive parenting deficit as protective capacity—the ability to keep the children safe from substance abuse in the home.

The circuit court found Mother repeatedly declined to separate from the father despite MDT warnings, added him to her lease, and continued cohabitation while he tested positive for alcohol and cocaine and did not consistently engage in services. From those facts, the circuit court concluded it had “no faith” she would keep him away from the children if reunification occurred. The Supreme Court affirmed that this record supported the statutory finding that Mother “demonstrated an inadequate capacity to solve the problems of abuse or neglect on her own or with help” under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(d).

The Court also noted the practical consequence of Mother’s decision: it prevented progression to unsupervised and overnight visits, reinforcing the conclusion that reunification was not safely achievable “in the near future.” Once the statutory findings were met, termination was authorized under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6), particularly given the children’s need for permanency.

B. Post-termination visitation under amended Rule 15(b)(2)(A)

The Court treated post-termination visitation as discretionary and limited by the “best interests” framework in the recently amended Rule 15(b)(2)(A) of the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings. It highlighted the rule’s required considerations:

  1. the guardian ad litem’s recommendation,
  2. the child’s wishes if of sufficient age/maturity,
  3. other relevant evidence, including the nature of the abuse/neglect and the existence of a bond.

Even though the circuit court acknowledged a bond with the older children (and found the youngest lacked a bond due to removal in infancy), it denied visitation because it would be detrimental, “confusing” during the move toward permanency, and contrary to the children’s expressed desire to have no continued contact. On appeal, the Court declined to reweigh that evidence, invoking Guthrie.

3.3. Impact

  • Reunification hinges on protective capacity, not task completion: The decision reinforces that a parent’s completion of services and negative drug screens may be insufficient if the parent continues to expose children to a high-risk caregiver or refuses to separate from a substance-using partner. Courts may treat continued cohabitation and minimization of a partner’s substance abuse as evidence the underlying conditions remain uncorrected.
  • Amended Rule 15(b)(2)(A) becomes the operative roadmap for post-termination visitation: The opinion signals that post-termination visitation is not a “bond-based entitlement.” Trial courts must make a best-interests determination that explicitly considers the guardian’s recommendation and the child’s wishes (if sufficiently mature), and appellate courts will generally defer to that weighing if supported by the record.
  • Children’s stated preferences carry real weight: Where children express opposition to continued contact and multiple professionals concur, courts can deny post-termination visitation even when some bond exists, especially when permanency (e.g., adoption) is the plan.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Improvement period (post-adjudicatory / post-dispositional)
A court-supervised opportunity for a parent, after a neglect/abuse adjudication, to complete services (drug treatment, therapy, parenting classes, etc.) aimed at correcting the conditions that brought the case to court.
“No reasonable likelihood that conditions ... can be substantially corrected” (W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(d))
A statutory threshold allowing termination when the evidence shows the parent cannot fix the core safety problems soon enough, even with help. It is not limited to whether the parent attended services; it includes whether the parent can actually keep the child safe day-to-day.
Protective capacity
A parent’s ability to recognize danger (like ongoing substance abuse in the home) and to take effective steps to protect the child (like separating from a risky partner and enforcing boundaries).
Post-termination visitation
Contact after parental rights have been terminated. Under amended Rule 15(b)(2)(A), it may be granted only if the court finds it is in the child’s best interests after considering the guardian’s recommendation, the child’s wishes (if mature enough), and other relevant evidence (including bond and the nature of the neglect/abuse).

5. Conclusion

In re W.L., K.L., and G.L. underscores two practical rules in West Virginia abuse-and-neglect jurisprudence: (1) service “compliance” does not prevent termination where the parent’s real-world decisions show an unchanged inability to protect children, particularly from a substance-using partner in the home; and (2) post-termination visitation is strictly controlled by the child’s best interests under amended Rule 15(b)(2)(A), with substantial deference to the circuit court’s weighing of the guardian’s recommendation and the child’s expressed wishes. The opinion reflects an overarching priority on timely permanency and safety over formal progress metrics.