The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court of Braxton County's decision to terminate Guardian S.D.'s custodial and guardianship rights to two children, identified as B.W. and N.W., in a memorandum decision filed Nov. 25, 2025.
The guardian appealed the Dec. 3, 2024, termination order, arguing the circuit court erred by denying her an improvement period. The Supreme Court of Appeals determined that oral argument was unnecessary and issued a memorandum decision affirming the lower court's ruling.
The case stems from a petition filed April 23, 2024, by the Department of Health Services alleging the guardian failed to protect the children and allowed them to live with their biological parents, whose custodial rights had been previously terminated. The petition also alleged the guardian failed to provide a suitable home and educationally neglected one of the children.
The complex family history dates back to 2019, when a legal proceeding resulted in the termination of the biological parents' custodial rights. Following that termination, the children were placed in legal guardianship with the petitioner and her then-spouse. The 2019 dispositional order specifically required that all visitation between the biological parents and children be supervised by the guardian.
In 2022, the guardian submitted a letter to the circuit court requesting that the parents' custodial rights be reinstated. The court declined to address her request, explaining she had no legal standing to make such a motion. Subsequently, the biological parents themselves filed a motion seeking reinstatement of their custodial rights.
The circuit court denied the parents' motion in a September 2022 order, noting that while the parents had been convicted of felony child neglect, served their sentences, and completed parole, this was insufficient grounds for reinstating their rights.
The current case was triggered by allegations that surfaced in April 2024. According to the petition, on April 20, 2024, a Child Protective Services worker visited the guardian's home to investigate reports that she was allowing the children to spend time with their biological parents without supervision, in direct violation of the 2019 court order.
The case highlights the complex legal framework governing guardianship termination in West Virginia child welfare proceedings. When a guardian is appointed following parental rights termination, they assume full legal responsibility for the children's welfare and safety. Court orders establishing guardianship typically include specific requirements and restrictions designed to protect the children's best interests.
The guardian's request for an improvement period represents a common legal strategy in child welfare cases. Improvement periods allow guardians or parents additional time to address deficiencies and demonstrate their ability to provide appropriate care. However, courts are not required to grant such periods and will consider factors including the severity of the allegations, the children's safety, and the likelihood of successful remediation.
The Supreme Court of Appeals' decision to issue a memorandum decision rather than a full opinion indicates the court viewed the legal issues as sufficiently straightforward that extended analysis was unnecessary. Memorandum decisions carry the same precedential weight as full opinions but are typically used when the law is well-established and the facts clearly support the lower court's ruling.
The case number 25-3 corresponds to Braxton County Circuit Court cases CC-04-2024-JA-17 and CC-04-2024-JA-18, suggesting the children's cases were handled separately but consolidated for appeal purposes.
This termination represents a significant legal consequence for the guardian, who loses all parental rights and responsibilities regarding the children. The children will likely be placed in alternative care arrangements, potentially including foster care or adoption, depending on available options and their specific needs.
The decision underscores the strict standards applied to guardians in West Virginia's child welfare system. Courts expect guardians to strictly comply with all court orders and prioritize children's safety above all other considerations, including maintaining relationships with biological family members when such contact is prohibited or restricted.
The case also illustrates the finality of parental rights termination proceedings. Even when biological parents complete required programs and demonstrate rehabilitation, reinstating terminated parental rights remains extremely difficult and requires meeting stringent legal standards.
For legal practitioners handling similar cases, this decision reinforces the importance of strict compliance with court orders governing visitation and contact restrictions. Guardians who violate such orders risk losing their guardianship rights, regardless of their motivations or the perceived best interests of maintaining family connections.
The Supreme Court of Appeals' affirmation of the circuit court's decision suggests the lower court properly applied West Virginia law regarding guardianship termination and appropriately exercised its discretion in denying the requested improvement period. The case serves as a reminder that guardianship rights, while significant, are conditional upon meeting legal obligations and protecting children's welfare as defined by court orders and state law.