“Denial as Non-Compliance” – West Virginia Supreme Court Clarifies that Failure to Acknowledge Abuse Constitutes Grounds for Terminating Both Improvement Periods and Parental Rights

Introduction

The decision in In re J.W.-1, J.W.-2, and K.W. (Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, 26 June 2025) addresses a recurrent tension in child-abuse jurisprudence: how long a court must tolerate nominal compliance from a parent who refuses to accept responsibility for proven abuse and neglect. The petitioner-father (C.W.) appealed an order terminating both his post-adjudicatory improvement period and his parental rights to three children. His central complaint was that the circuit court should have allowed the improvement period to continue, or—at disposition—imposed a less drastic alternative than full termination. The Supreme Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed, setting out a crisp rule that persistent denial of wrongdoing can itself be treated as non-participation in an improvement period and as proof that conditions of abuse or neglect are unlikely to be corrected in the near future.

Summary of the Judgment

Detailed Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89 (2011) – Re-states standard of review (clear-error for facts; de novo for law). Anchors the Court’s scope of appellate review.
2. In re Lacey P., 189 W. Va. 580 (1993) – Confirmed circuit courts’ discretion to terminate improvement periods when not “satisfied the parent is making necessary progress.” Key to upholding early termination here.
3. In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558 (2011) and In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496 (1980) – Authorize termination of parental rights without lesser alternatives once statutory criteria are met.
4. In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44 (2013) & In re Charity H., 215 W. Va. 208 (2004) – “Failure to acknowledge the problem makes it untreatable.” These cases form the conceptual linchpin: denial equals incurability.

B. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in two steps:

1. Statutory Framework Applied Strictly. Section 49-4-610(7) permits termination of an improvement period upon any party’s motion if the parent “has failed to fully participate.” The Court construed participation to include meaningful acceptance of responsibility, not mere physical attendance. Father’s outburst, blame-shifting, and positive drug screens satisfied this threshold.
2. No Reasonable Likelihood of Correction. Under § 49-4-604(c)(6) & (d)(3), the Court asked whether the problems of abuse/neglect could be substantially corrected “in the near future.” Relying on Timber M., the Court held that persistent denial disables the treatment process itself; therefore the statutory “no reasonable likelihood” test was met. Consequently, less restrictive dispositions (guardianship, continued improvement period, or disposition under § 604(b)) were unwarranted.

C. Anticipated Impact

• Sharper Teeth for MDT Observations. Misconduct in multidisciplinary team meetings—often considered informal—can now directly undercut improvement periods.
• Primacy of Acknowledgment. The decision cements a practical rule: If you do not admit, you cannot remedy. Appellate counsel will find it difficult to argue for extensions of improvement periods where parents display sustained denial.
• Early Case Resolution. By validating prompt termination on denial grounds, the Court may encourage circuit judges to shorten case timelines, aligning with federal permanency mandates under ASFA (Adoption and Safe Families Act).
• Program Participation Is Not a Shield. Starting a Batterer Intervention and Prevention Program (BIPP) shortly before disposition was deemed insufficient, signaling that last-minute, check-the-box efforts will not salvage parental rights.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Post-Adjudicatory Improvement Period

A court-supervised window (usually 3–6 months) allowing a parent to correct problems after a finding of abuse/neglect. Conditions typically involve treatment, classes, and drug screenings.

Multidisciplinary Team (MDT)

A statutory team (CPS workers, therapist, GAL, attorneys) that meets to coordinate services and monitor compliance. Though informal, statements here are on-record and can influence the court.

BIPP (Batterer Intervention and Prevention Program)

Certified curriculum targeting domestic-violence perpetrators; completion can show rehabilitation but requires genuine accountability.

“No reasonable likelihood that conditions can be corrected”

Statutory finding under § 49-4-604 meaning the parent’s problems are so entrenched (or the parent so resistant) that correction is improbable in the near term—even with help.

Conclusion

In re J.W.-1, J.W.-2, and K.W. is a concise but powerful reaffirmation that meaningful self-reflection is the cornerstone of child-abuse rehabilitation. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has signaled that “going through the motions” while denying culpability equals non-participation. Circuit courts are both authorized and encouraged to terminate improvement periods and parental rights where denial persists, without first exhausting lesser remedies. Practitioners should counsel clients early that acceptance of responsibility is not optional—it is legally mandatory. Going forward, this precedent will likely accelerate permanency for vulnerable children and streamline abuse-and-neglect dockets statewide.