Revocation of Rehabilitation Transparency as Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights – A Commentary on In re S.A. (Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, 2025)

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia’s memorandum decision in In re S.A., No. 24-455 (July 30, 2025), affirms the termination of parental rights of Petitioner-Mother T.W. to her minor child, S.A. While the decision is officially “non-precedential,” its carefully reasoned application of West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(d) delivers a clarifying message: where a parent withholds or revokes access to treatment information that is essential for verifying compliance with a family case plan, such opacity may itself constitute “non-cooperation,” warranting a finding that the conditions of abuse or neglect are not reasonably likely to be corrected.

This commentary dissects the judgment, its reasoning, and its potential influence on abuse-and-neglect jurisprudence in West Virginia and beyond.

Summary of the Judgment

• Background – DHS filed an abuse & neglect petition (Aug 2021) after discovering drug use, homelessness, and unsafe care conditions. Mother stipulated to neglect and was granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period.
• Compliance Issues – Despite partial participation, Mother: (i) produced drug-screens with fluctuating Suboxone levels, (ii) was evicted during trial reunification, (iii) failed to supply employment records, (iv) ceased parenting education, (v) concealed a boyfriend’s identity, (vi) changed treatment centers without notice, and (vii) revoked DHS access to her medical records.
• Disposition – After multiple hearings (Apr-Jun 2023) the circuit court found “no reasonable likelihood” of correcting the neglect, terminated parental rights, and set adoption as the permanency plan.
• Appeal – Mother argued the findings were “clearly erroneous.” The Supreme Court, applying a clear-error/ de novo standard (Syl. Pt. 1, In re Cecil T.), held that the lower court properly relied on statutory factors and record evidence; affirmed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89 (2011) – Sets bifurcated appellate standard: factual findings (clear error) vs. legal conclusions (de novo). The Court followed this framework, emphasizing respect for circuit-court credibility determinations.
• In re D.S., ___ W. Va. ___, 914 S.E.2d 701 (2025) – Quoted for the proposition that an appellate court does not reweigh evidence. By reinforcing D.S. the Court signals a consistent posture: parents must overcome a deferential standard on appeal.
• West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(d)(3) – Statutorily defines circumstances constituting “no reasonable likelihood.” The Court directly mapped Mother’s conduct (failure to follow through with case plan) onto the statutory language.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolds in three steps:

1. Identify the Parent’s Obligations – Drug screening, sobriety maintenance, parenting classes, employment verification, housing stability, and transparency with DHS.
2. Catalog Non-Compliance – Particular weight placed on the revocation of medical-information releases, missed screens, possession of diluted samples, unexplained Suboxone fluctuations, and abandonment of parenting services. Each lapse undermined DHS’s ability to assess genuine rehabilitation.
3. Apply § 49-4-604(d) – The cumulative record demonstrated “an inadequate capacity” to solve the neglect problems “on [her] own or with help.” The Court deemed that continuing the case would only prolong the child’s instability, satisfying the statutory trigger for termination.

3. Impact on Future Cases

• Transparency as a Duty – Parents under an improvement period now receive an unmistakable signal: revoking or obstructing information flow to CPS may itself supply the predicate for termination. Counsel must warn clients accordingly.
• Substance-Use Monitoring – Variances in medication-assisted-treatment (MAT) drug levels, if unexplained, can be leveraged as evidence of misuse; but only if the agency can access corroborating medical data. The onus of providing such data rests squarely on the parent.
• Appellate Deference Cemented – By leaning on In re D.S., the Court continues to limit the path for overturning terminations; factual disputes resolved below will rarely succeed on appeal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• “Improvement Period” – A court-supervised time-frame during which a parent must meet specific requirements to demonstrate the ability to safely care for the child.
• “No Reasonable Likelihood … can be substantially corrected” – A statutory conclusion reached when a parent either cannot or will not remedy the conditions that led to abuse/neglect, even with help.
• Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) – Use of FDA-approved medications such as Suboxone (buprenorphine/naloxone) to treat opioid use disorder. Fluctuating levels on drug screens can suggest diversion or misuse.
• Trial Reunification – Temporary return of the child to the parent’s home; success depends on sustained compliance with safety conditions.
• Revocation of Release of Information (ROI) – Withdrawal of written consent authorizing DHS to obtain confidential treatment or medical records. Here, it crippled the agency’s capacity to verify the Mother’s claims.

Conclusion

In re S.A. reinforces a critical, yet sometimes underestimated, component of parental rehabilitation: transparent collaboration with child-protection agencies. By upholding termination chiefly on the Mother’s refusal to maintain that transparency, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia effectively elevates access to corroborative treatment data from a procedural nicety to a substantive prerequisite for reunification. Future litigants—and their counsel—must recognize that non-disclosure or selective disclosure of rehabilitation records can decisively undermine an otherwise earnest improvement effort. Consistent with the Court’s deferential stance toward circuit-court fact-finding, challenging such determinations on appeal will remain an uphill battle. For practitioners, the case serves both as a cautionary tale and a precedent for arguing termination when parental opacity places the child’s welfare in continued jeopardy.