In re L.M.: The West Virginia Supreme Court Confirms that Parental Rights May Be Terminated Without Lesser Alternatives When the Parent Fails to Acknowledge Abuse or Comply with an Improvement Period

Introduction

In a memorandum decision issued on 26 June 2025, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the termination of the parental, custodial, and guardianship rights of the petitioner-father, D.M., to his minor child, L.M. (In re L.M., No. 24-33). The decision arises from an abuse and neglect proceeding in the Circuit Court of Ohio County and turns on the father’s persistent substance abuse, repeated non-compliance with court-ordered services, and refusal to accept responsibility for the child’s maltreatment. Although styled as a memorandum decision, the ruling reinforces—and subtly refines—West Virginia jurisprudence on two fronts:

1. When a trial court may bypass lesser restrictive dispositional alternatives and proceed directly to termination of parental rights (TPR); and
2. The strict necessity that a parent both (a) formally request post-dispositional relief in writing and (b) demonstrate meaningful compliance and insight before such relief will be considered.

Parties:

• Petitioner/Appellant: D.M., biological father of L.M.
• Respondent/Appellee: West Virginia Department of Human Services (DHS), formerly part of the DHHR.
• Guardian ad Litem (GAL): Joseph J. Moses, representing L.M.’s best interests.

Key Issue on Appeal: Whether the circuit court erred in (1) terminating D.M.’s parental rights without ordering a less restrictive placement option and (2) declining to grant a post-dispositional improvement period.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order of 7 November 2023, concluding that:

• Substantial evidence demonstrated “no reasonable likelihood” that D.M. could correct the conditions of abuse and neglect in the near future, as contemplated by W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(d);
• D.M.’s ongoing drug use, failure to complete substance-abuse treatment, denial of domestic-violence history, and refusal to follow service-provider recommendations all indicated an “inadequate capacity” to remedy the situation;
• Under syllabus point 5 of In re Kristin Y., the trial court was justified in terminating parental rights without employing less restrictive alternatives; and
• D.M.’s allegation of error regarding a denied post-dispositional improvement period was meritless because (i) no written motion had been filed and (ii) strict compliance with State ex rel. P.G.-1 v. Wilson (2021) requires such a motion.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89 (2011)
   • Provided the standard of review: clear-error for factual findings, de novo for legal conclusions.
2. In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558 (2011)
   • Syllabus point 5 re-affirmed: TPR may proceed without lesser alternatives where no reasonable likelihood of correction exists.
3. In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496 (1980)
   • The progenitor of the “no reasonable likelihood” doctrine, cited via Kristin Y.
4. In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44 (2013)
   • Stands for the proposition that failure to acknowledge abuse renders the problem “untreatable.” The Court in L.M. echoed this principle to emphasize D.M.’s blame-shifting.
5. In re Charity H., 215 W. Va. 208 (2004)
   • Quoted in Timber M.; likewise used here to underscore the need for parental insight.
6. State ex rel. P.G.-1 v. Wilson, 247 W. Va. 235 (2021)
   • Requires a written motion for any improvement period beyond the post-adjudicatory phase.

Collectively, these precedents allowed the Court to treat D.M.’s non-compliance and denial as dispositive, validating the circuit court’s decision to forgo lesser alternatives.

B. Legal Reasoning of the Court

1. Statutory Framework
   The Court applied W. Va. Code § 49-4-604, which provides a two-prong test for TPR: (1) no reasonable likelihood of correction and (2) termination necessary for the child’s welfare.
2. Findings of Fact
   • Persistent positive drug screens (THC and, once, amphetamines).
   • Abandonment of substance-abuse treatment and counseling.
   • Refusal to participate in recommended BIPP classes, anger-management therapy, or mental-health interventions.
   • Lack of parent-child bond observed during supervised visits.
   • Blame-shifting and denial of wrongdoing.
3. Application of the “No Reasonable Likelihood” Standard
   The Court considered D.M.’s situation under § 604(d)(1) (drug addiction impairing parenting) and § 604(d)(3) (failure to follow rehabilitative efforts). Repetitive non-compliance met both statutory subsections.
4. Rejection of Lesser Restrictive Alternatives
   Under Kristin Y., the presence of unrebutted § 604(d) factors obviates the need for dispositions such as guardianship, custody transfer to relatives, or an additional improvement period.
5. Procedural Default on Post-Dispositional Improvement Period
   Because D.M. never filed a written motion, the Court relied on P.G.-1 v. Wilson to dismiss this claim summarily. This underscores how procedural prerequisites can bar appellate relief.

C. Anticipated Impact of the Decision

• Reinforcement of Parental Accountability: Courts will likely cite In re L.M. to stress that mere participation in some services is inadequate without genuine acknowledgment of wrongdoing and sustained compliance.
• Stricter View of Marijuana Use: The decision treats repeated THC positives as a significant impairment, dispelling any notion that marijuana is a “minor” violation in the abuse-and-neglect context.
• No Tolerance for Procedural Lapses: The ruling signals to counsel that failure to file a written motion for relief (e.g., post-dispositional improvement) is fatal on appeal.
• Clarification on Lesser Alternatives: Circuit courts can rely more confidently on § 604(d) factors and Kristin Y. to bypass lesser dispositions when evidence of ongoing risk is overwhelming.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Abuse and Neglect Petition

A civil filing by the state (DHS) alleging that a child is unsafe due to a parent’s conduct or omissions.

Adjudicatory Hearing

The phase where the court determines—by stipulation or evidence—whether the child was, in fact, abused or neglected.

Improvement Period

A statutory window (post-adjudicatory or post-dispositional) during which the parent receives services to correct underlying problems. Approval requires a motion and a credible plan.

No Reasonable Likelihood of Correction

Legal shorthand for a finding that the parent cannot, or will not, remedy the conditions of abuse/neglect within a reasonable time, even with help.

Lesser Restrictive Alternative

Any disposition less drastic than TPR, such as placement with relatives, temporary guardianship, or another improvement period.

Termination of Parental Rights (TPR)

The permanent, court-ordered severance of the legal relationship between parent and child. It paves the way for adoption.

Conclusion

In re L.M. fortifies a line of West Virginia cases emphasizing that parental rights may be terminated without resorting to lesser alternatives whenever the parent persistently refuses to accept responsibility or comply with mandated services. The Supreme Court underscored three decisive principles:

1. Continued substance abuse, coupled with defiance of treatment protocols, satisfies the statutory “no reasonable likelihood” threshold.
2. A parent’s failure to acknowledge wrongdoing renders the underlying problem virtually untreatable.
3. Procedural prerequisites—like filing a written motion for additional improvement periods—are mandatory, not optional.

By affirming the lower court’s ruling in this context, the Court sends a clear message: child safety and permanency take precedence over indefinite opportunities for parental rehabilitation, especially where the parent demonstrates an entrenched pattern of non-compliance and denial. Practitioners should view In re L.M. as a persuasive authority for swift permanency planning when the record reflects similar patterns of parental behavior.