Reaffirming That Noncompliance With DHS Services Precludes an Improvement Period and Supports Termination: In re E.Y. and G.S.

Introduction

In In re E.Y. and G.S., No. 24-358 (W. Va. Sept. 10, 2025) (memorandum decision), the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed a Kanawha County circuit court order denying a post-adjudicatory improvement period to the petitioner mother (S.Y.) and terminating her parental rights to her two children. The Court held that the mother’s total noncompliance with offered services—failure to submit to drug screening, failure to communicate with the Department of Human Services (DHS), refusal to provide paperwork needed to initiate services, and no visitation with the children—defeated her request for an improvement period and supported the statutory finding that there was no reasonable likelihood the conditions of abuse and neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future. The Court also reaffirmed that when those statutory conditions exist and termination is necessary for the welfare of the children, courts may terminate parental rights without employing less restrictive alternatives.

The decision underscores core themes in West Virginia abuse and neglect jurisprudence: immediate and verifiable engagement with DHS services is essential; credibility and the weight of conflicting evidence are for the circuit court as factfinder; and the children’s need for stability and permanency will drive dispositional outcomes, including termination and adoption, when a parent fails to demonstrate timely, substantive progress.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court, acting under West Virginia Rule of Appellate Procedure 21, resolved the appeal by memorandum decision without oral argument and affirmed. It applied a clear-error standard to factual findings and de novo review to legal conclusions. The Court held:

The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying a post-adjudicatory improvement period. Under West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(2)(B), the parent must demonstrate a likelihood of full compliance with the improvement period. The mother’s total failure to engage in services, drug screen, or even complete paperwork rebutted any such likelihood.
Termination of parental rights was proper under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6) and § 49-4-604(d)(3) because the mother did not respond to or follow through with the family case plan or rehabilitative efforts and there was no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction in the near future. The children’s need for permanency through adoption supported termination without resort to less restrictive alternatives.
On appeal, the mother’s uncorroborated testimony about steps she purportedly took outside DHS oversight could not overcome the deferential standard of review and the circuit court’s credibility determinations. The Supreme Court does not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the circuit court on credibility matters.

Background and Procedural Posture

DHS filed an abuse and neglect petition in January 2024 alleging parental substance abuse (including fentanyl and methamphetamine), a history of domestic violence, and homelessness. At the preliminary stage, the circuit court ordered DHS to provide services (parenting education, adult life skills, treatment referrals) and allowed supervised visitation conditioned on two consecutive negative drug screens. At the February 2024 adjudication hearing, which the mother did not attend (though represented by counsel), the court adjudicated her as an abusing parent based on substance abuse, domestic battery, and inability to provide adequate shelter.

In April 2024, the mother filed a one-sentence motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period. DHS filed a court summary documenting her noncompliance and recommended termination. At the April 26, 2024 dispositional hearing, DHS proved she had not participated in any services, had not contacted DHS, and had not visited the children. The mother admitted she had not drug screened or engaged in services, was not in treatment, and had illegally purchased and abused fentanyl during the proceedings (believing it was Xanax), while simultaneously claiming she could pass a drug screen. The circuit court denied the improvement period, found no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction, and terminated parental rights. The permanency plan is adoption in the children’s current placements. The Supreme Court affirmed on September 10, 2025.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

Standard of Review — In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011). The Court reiterated that it reviews factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. This framework cabins appellate intervention and reinforces that trial courts are the primary evaluators of evidence in abuse and neglect cases.
Deference to Credibility Findings — In re D.S., -- W. Va. --, 914 S.E.2d 701 (2025). The Court quoted In re D.S. for the principle that appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or make credibility determinations. This undercuts the mother’s appellate argument that her uncorroborated testimony should outweigh DHS’s documentary and testimonial evidence of noncompliance.
Improvement Period Discretion — In re M.M., 236 W. Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (2015). Cited for the proposition that circuit courts have discretion to grant or deny improvement periods. That discretion is informed by statutory criteria—most notably whether the parent is likely to fully comply.
Visitation as a Proxy for Capacity to Improve — In re Katie S., 198 W. Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996). The Court referenced Katie S. for the proposition that a parent’s level of interest in visiting children while out of custody is a significant factor in gauging the potential to improve and meet minimum parenting standards. Failure to visit—here tied to the mother’s refusal to drug screen—counted against her.
Termination Without Less Restrictive Alternatives — In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (quoting In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980)). The Court restated that when there is no reasonable likelihood that conditions can be substantially corrected in the near future and termination is necessary for the child’s welfare, courts may terminate parental rights without first imposing less restrictive dispositional alternatives.

Statutory Framework Applied

Improvement Period — W. Va. Code § 49-4-610(2)(B). A post-adjudicatory improvement period requires the parent, by a preponderance of the evidence, to demonstrate a likelihood of full compliance with terms. The mother’s one-sentence motion, coupled with an absolute lack of engagement in services and drug screening, failed this threshold.
No Reasonable Likelihood of Correction — W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(d)(3). The statute provides that “no reasonable likelihood” includes situations where the parent has “not responded to or followed through with a reasonable family case plan or other rehabilitative efforts.” Evidence showed the mother did not even complete basic paperwork to begin services and refused ordered drug screens.
Termination Standard — W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6). Termination is authorized upon a finding that there is no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction in the near future and termination is necessary for the welfare of the child. The children’s need for permanency via adoption satisfied this welfare component.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning tracked the statutory and precedential framework:

Improvement period denial. The mother bore the burden to demonstrate a likelihood of full compliance. Her complete nonparticipation in DHS services, failure to drug screen, failure to communicate or provide paperwork, and admission of continued illicit substance use during the case directly contradicted any claim of likely compliance. The circuit court’s denial was thus within its discretion.
Credibility and appellate deference. The mother relied on uncorroborated testimony that she had taken steps to remedy conditions without DHS oversight. The circuit court rejected that testimony as unpersuasive. Under In re D.S., the Supreme Court declined to reweigh evidence or disturb credibility findings, foreclosing relief on appeal.
No reasonable likelihood of substantial correction. The statutory indicator in § 49-4-604(d)(3) was satisfied because the mother did not respond to or follow through with the family case plan and rehabilitative efforts. The additional fact that she did not visit the children, because she refused to comply with prerequisite drug screens, further evidenced a lack of commitment and capacity to improve (see Katie S.).
Termination and less restrictive alternatives. Once the circuit court found the statutory factors—no reasonable likelihood of correction and necessity for the children’s welfare—Kristin Y. and R.J.M. authorized termination without the need to attempt less restrictive alternatives. The children’s need for permanency through adoption made termination appropriate.

Key Record Facts Driving the Outcome

Mother admitted she would test positive for fentanyl and methamphetamine at the outset; she later admitted to abusing fentanyl during the proceedings.
No participation in any DHS-offered service; failure to complete paperwork needed to initiate services.
No contact with DHS, no drug screens, and no visitation with the children.
Mother did not attend adjudication; was adjudicated an abusing parent based on substance abuse, domestic battery, and homelessness.
A one-sentence motion for an improvement period, unsupported by evidence of compliance or concrete steps toward rehabilitation.

Impact and Practical Implications

Although a memorandum decision, the Court’s ruling reflects and reinforces key principles that will influence practice in abuse and neglect cases:

Engagement must be early, consistent, and documented. Parents seeking an improvement period must present tangible, verifiable evidence—clean drug screens, treatment enrollment and attendance, completed service paperwork, and active participation in case plan tasks. Bare assertions of improvement are insufficient.
“Paperwork” matters. The opinion explicitly highlights failure to provide paperwork necessary to implement services as noncompliance. Counsel should ensure clients promptly execute releases, intake forms, and any authorizations so that services can start and progress can be measured.
Visitation as a bellwether. Conditions on visitation (such as consecutive negative drug screens) are common. Failure to meet those conditions—and thus to visit at all—will weigh heavily against the parent’s prospects under Katie S. Practitioners should prioritize whatever steps are needed to access visitation.
One-sentence motions are risky. A skeletal motion for an improvement period that lacks evidentiary proffer invites denial. Effective motions should attach or reference supporting documentation and lay out a concrete, feasible plan showing likelihood of full compliance.
Appellate limits. On appeal, credibility findings and evidentiary weight are largely insulated from review. Building a strong evidentiary record in the circuit court is critical; appellate courts will not reweigh that record.
Permanency timelines. The ruling aligns with the statutory emphasis on timely permanency. When a parent’s noncompliance persists through adjudication and disposition, courts may move to termination and adoption without intermediate dispositional measures.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Abuse and neglect case: A civil proceeding to protect children when there are allegations that a parent has harmed them or failed to provide necessary care (e.g., due to substance abuse, domestic violence, homelessness).
Adjudication vs. disposition: Adjudication decides whether abuse or neglect happened. Disposition decides what to do about it (e.g., services, custody changes, termination).
Post-adjudicatory improvement period: A court-approved, time-limited plan during which the parent must follow specific services and conditions to remedy the problems that led to the case. The parent must show they are likely to fully comply to get one.
No reasonable likelihood of substantial correction: A legal finding that, in the near future, the parent probably will not fix the problems that caused abuse or neglect. One statutory example is when the parent has not followed through with the case plan or services.
Less restrictive alternatives: Dispositional options short of termination (like temporary custody with services). Courts are not required to use them if the statute’s termination criteria are met and termination is necessary for the child’s welfare.
Standard of review on appeal: The appellate court defers to the trial court’s factual findings unless clearly wrong, and it reviews legal questions anew. Credibility determinations belong to the trial court.

Conclusion

In re E.Y. and G.S. reinforces that a parent’s failure to engage with DHS services—including as basic a step as completing intake paperwork—defeats the statutory showing required for a post-adjudicatory improvement period and supports a finding that there is no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction in the near future. The Court’s deference to circuit court credibility assessments and its reliance on established precedents—Cecil T., D.S., M.M., Katie S., Kristin Y., and R.J.M.—underscore a durable legal framework: improvement periods are discretionary and must be earned through documented compliance; the child’s welfare and need for permanency are paramount; and when statutory conditions are met, termination may proceed without less restrictive alternatives.

For practitioners, the decision is a clear reminder that success in these cases turns on timely, verifiable action. For circuit courts, it confirms that documented noncompliance may justify denying improvement periods and ordering termination to achieve permanency. For families and children, it signals that West Virginia courts will prioritize stability and safety where parental engagement is absent.

Case Information

Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
Case: In re E.Y. and G.S., No. 24-358 (Kanawha County CC-20-2024-JA-3 and CC-20-2024-JA-4)
Decision: Affirmed (Memorandum Decision; no oral argument)
Date: September 10, 2025
Panel: Chief Justice William R. Wooton; Justices C. Haley Bunn, Charles S. Trump IV, Thomas H. Ewing; Senior Status Justice John A. Hutchison
Parties: Petitioner Mother S.Y.; West Virginia Department of Human Services (DHS); Guardian ad litem for the children
Disposition Below: Denial of post-adjudicatory improvement period; termination of parental rights; permanency plan—adoption in current placements