Reasonable Efforts Clarified: Prior-Case Services and Futility Can Satisfy DHS’s Reunification Duty in Recidivist Neglect Cases

Introduction

In re D.G. and L.G., No. 24-620 (W. Va. Sept. 30, 2025), is a memorandum decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirming the Nicholas County Circuit Court’s termination of a mother’s parental rights. The decision centers on a focused question raised on appeal: whether the West Virginia Department of Human Services (DHS) made “reasonable efforts” to preserve and reunify the family before termination, as required by statute.

The case arose from a December 2023 petition alleging unsafe and deplorable home conditions and a failure to provide adequate medical care to D.G., who suffered a significant leg laceration from a hunting knife. Instead of seeking medical care, the parents bandaged and duct-taped the wound and sent him to school; school staff later determined the injury required stitches. DHS then documented severe home conditions, including foul odors, excessive clutter, numerous animals inside, and a urine-soaked bed that had not been cleaned.

Notably, these conditions mirrored a prior 2020 abuse and neglect case involving the same household. That prior matter resulted in removal, adjudication against the mother, and an improvement period with parenting and adult life skills services; the mother completed those services and the children were returned in July 2021. Within roughly two years, however, the home again fell into deplorable condition, giving rise to the present case.

The circuit court adjudicated abuse and neglect in January 2024 and, following dispositional hearings in March and September 2024, terminated parental rights. On appeal, the mother (T.G.) argued the DHS did not make reasonable efforts to preserve the family. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the record demonstrated DHS’s efforts were sufficient under West Virginia law and that additional services would have been futile given the recurring conditions and the mother’s inability to correct them “even with the assistance of the DHS.”

Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court applied the standard of review from Syllabus point 1 of In re Cecil T., reviewing factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.
Although the mother’s briefing failed to comply with Rule 10(c)(7) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure (for lack of authority and developed argument), the Court addressed the merits.
Under W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(d) and § 49-4-604(c)(6)(C)(iii)-(iv), courts must consider whether DHS provided supportive and reasonable reunification efforts prior to termination.
The Court held that DHS met its reasonable-efforts obligation: it arranged and paid for psychological evaluations in the current case, and the mother had received extensive services (parenting and adult life skills) during the prior 2020 case, with ongoing engagement with a licensed clinical social worker. The recurrence of severe home conditions while the mother was still in services demonstrated further services would be ineffectual.
Given the circuit court’s findings of a “fundamental inability” to remedy conditions—despite past and present services—and the lack of harm from not returning the children (including findings of ambivalence and lack of bond), the Supreme Court affirmed termination.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents, Statutes, and Rules Cited

In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011). The Court reiterated the standard of review: clear error for factual findings and de novo for legal conclusions in abuse and neglect appeals.
W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(d). Requires DHS to provide supportive services aimed at remedying detrimental circumstances to the child.
W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6)(C)(iii)-(iv). In termination proceedings, courts consider whether DHS made reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family and whether the parent has failed to follow through with a reasonable family case plan or rehabilitative efforts, or otherwise cannot correct the conditions in the near future even with assistance.
W. Va. R. App. P. 21. Authorizes resolution via memorandum decision without oral argument when appropriate.
W. Va. R. App. P. 10(c)(7) and 10(j). Require properly supported, cited argument; noncompliance can result in sanctions, including dismissal.
Administrative Order (Dec. 10, 2012), Re: Filings That Do Not Comply With the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Reinforces the obligation to cite authority and develop arguments; warns of sanctions for noncompliance.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three steps: (1) it underscores the appellant’s briefing deficiencies; (2) it lays out the statutory framework for reasonable efforts; and (3) it applies that framework to a record of prior and current services, concluding that further efforts would be futile in light of recidivist, severe conditions.

1) Briefing deficiencies do not bar merits review—this time

The Court highlighted that the mother’s brief lacked citations and a developed legal argument on the reasonable-efforts requirement, contravening Rule 10(c)(7) and the 2012 Administrative Order. While the Court proceeded to decide the case, it reiterated that such defects may lead to sanctions, including refusal to consider the case. This signals continued strict enforcement of appellate briefing rules—especially important in expedited abuse-and-neglect appeals.

2) “Reasonable efforts” focus on meaningful, not redundant, services

The Court explained that DHS must provide supportive services (§ 49-4-601(d)) and that, before terminating parental rights, courts must consider whether reasonable efforts at preservation and reunification were made (§ 49-4-604(c)(6)(C)(iii)-(iv)). Reasonableness is not measured by volume or duplication but by the substance and timing of services, and whether additional services would meaningfully reduce risk and correct conditions in the near future.

3) Prior-case services and targeted current services can satisfy the duty; futility matters

Three strands of evidence supported the circuit court’s reasonable-efforts finding:

Historical services. In the 2020 case, DHS provided roughly eight months of parenting and adult life skills services; the mother completed that improvement period and regained custody in July 2021.
Continuing engagement. A licensed clinical social worker had been working with the family since 2021, and the mother remained in services when DHS again found the home in deplorable condition in late 2023.
Current-case services. The circuit court ordered and DHS arranged/paid for psychological evaluations for both parents during the present case.

The recurrence of the same deplorable conditions—even while services were ongoing—convinced the circuit court there was “no reasonable likelihood” the mother could correct the abuse and neglect in the near future “even with the assistance of the DHS.” That finding dovetails with § 49-4-604(c)(6)(C), which contemplates termination when parents fail to follow through with reasonable case plans or cannot remedy conditions with help.

In essence, the Court affirmed that reasonable efforts may be satisfied where DHS provided substantial services in a recent prior case, continued support thereafter, and added targeted evaluations in the current case, yet the same dangerous conditions reemerged. Under such circumstances, DHS is not required to repeat the same services ad infinitum; when the record shows further services would be futile or contrary to the children’s welfare, termination is permissible.

Findings on Bonding, Child Welfare, and Credibility

The Court also endorsed the circuit court’s judgment on disputed evidence concerning attachment and welfare. Although the children’s psychiatrist opined that severing the bond would be detrimental, the CPS worker and guardian ad litem reported that the children were doing well in placement and did not ask to return; D.G. became upset and said he did not want to see the parents; the guardian represented the children had no emotional attachment. Weighing this conflicting evidence, the circuit court found the children had no bond with the mother and that not returning them would not be harmful. On appeal, those factual determinations are reviewed for clear error; the Supreme Court found the record supported the trial court’s findings.

Impact and Significance

Although resolved by memorandum decision, In re D.G. and L.G. has meaningful implications for abuse-and-neglect practice in West Virginia:

Reasonable efforts across cases. Services previously provided in a recent, closely related abuse-and-neglect matter may count toward the DHS’s “reasonable efforts” showing in a subsequent case, particularly when the same neglectful conditions recur despite those services.
Futility principle reaffirmed. Where the circuit court finds no reasonable likelihood of correction even with assistance, DHS is not obliged to duplicate or prolong services that have already proven ineffective, especially in recidivist, hazardous home conditions.
Targeted services suffice. Arranging and paying for psychological evaluations in the current case, coupled with a documented history of services and ongoing therapeutic engagement, can satisfy the reasonable-efforts requirement.
Attachment findings are fact-driven. Trial courts retain latitude to credit CPS and guardian ad litem observations over expert testimony when the record supports such credibility determinations.
Briefing rigor is essential. The Court again emphasized strict compliance with Rule 10(c)(7): appellants must cite relevant authority and present developed argument. Abuse-and-neglect litigants risk waiver or sanctions for noncompliant briefing.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Reasonable efforts: The statutory obligation on DHS to offer meaningful services designed to help a parent remedy the conditions that led to abuse or neglect, with an eye toward safely reunifying the family when possible. Reasonableness looks to quality and effectiveness, not mere quantity.
Improvement period: A period ordered by the circuit court during which a parent must comply with a family case plan and services (e.g., parenting classes, home sanitation plans, mental health services) to correct the issues that caused removal. Successful completion does not immunize against future termination if conditions recur.
No reasonable likelihood of correction: A legal conclusion the court may reach when evidence shows the parent is unwilling or unable to correct the harmful conditions in the near future, including where prior services failed or the parent did not follow through with a reasonable case plan. When this is found, termination may be ordered if consistent with the child’s welfare.
Adjudicatory vs. dispositional hearing: At adjudication, the court decides whether abuse or neglect occurred. At disposition, the court determines the appropriate remedy (e.g., additional services, custody changes, or termination).
Guardian ad litem: A court-appointed lawyer who independently represents the best interests of the child, investigates, and makes recommendations to the court.
Memorandum decision: A streamlined appellate decision issued without oral argument under Rule 21. While not typically intended to create new law, such decisions provide guidance on the application of existing statutes and principles to given facts.

Key Factual and Procedural Highlights

2019: Parents adopt D.G. and L.G.
2020: First abuse-and-neglect case for deplorable home conditions; removal, adjudication, and an improvement period with parenting and life skills services; children returned in July 2021.
December 2023: DHS files new petition after D.G. suffers a serious leg cut; parents do not seek medical care; DHS again finds deplorable conditions (foul odor, clutter, seven animals, soiled bed).
December 2023: Court orders psychological evaluations; DHS arranges and pays.
January 2024: Adjudication—mother found to have abused and neglected the children; court notes prior case and inference that failure to seek medical care sought to avoid CPS involvement.
March and September 2024: Dispositional hearings. Evidence includes LCSW testimony (mother compliant in services), psychiatrist testimony (children’s significant diagnoses and apparent bond), CPS/guardian reports (children doing well in placement, do not ask to return, minimal or no attachment; D.G. does not want to see parents).
September 18, 2024: Circuit court terminates parental rights, finding a fundamental inability to understand and remedy conditions, lack of bond, and that additional DHS services would not correct the conditions in the near future.
September 30, 2025: Supreme Court affirms termination; finds DHS made reasonable efforts under the statutes and that the record supports the circuit court’s findings.

Why the Case Matters

This decision underscores a practical and child-centric application of the reasonable-efforts requirement. It recognizes that DHS is not required to re-provide the same services when recent, substantial services—including a completed improvement period and ongoing therapy—failed to prevent recurrence of serious neglect. The Court’s acceptance of targeted current-case measures (psychological evaluations) as part of the reasonable-efforts calculus, viewed against the backdrop of extensive prior services, provides clear guidance in repeat-neglect scenarios.

The opinion also offers a cautionary note to appellate practitioners: arguments must be grounded in authority and developed under Rule 10(c)(7). Even where the Court elects to reach the merits, noncompliant briefs jeopardize the appeal and may invite sanctions.

Conclusion

In re D.G. and L.G. confirms that “reasonable efforts” are measured by effectiveness and context, not duplication. Prior-case services that addressed the same conditions, ongoing therapeutic engagement, and targeted evaluations in the new case can together satisfy DHS’s reunification duty—especially when credible evidence shows the parent cannot correct the conditions in the near future even with assistance. The Court’s affirmation of termination rests on deference to supported factual findings (including bonding and welfare assessments) and a pragmatic application of the futility principle embedded in West Virginia’s child welfare code.

Taken together, the decision reinforces three themes in West Virginia abuse-and-neglect jurisprudence: (1) trial courts may consider the full arc of services provided across related proceedings; (2) DHS need not offer redundant services when experience shows they will not remedy recidivist, dangerous conditions; and (3) appellate litigants must rigorously comply with briefing rules to preserve and persuade. The case thus provides a clear, workable template for evaluating reasonable efforts in repeat-neglect cases involving chronic home conditions and significant child vulnerabilities.