The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court of Ohio County's decision to terminate a father's parental rights to his two children, rejecting his argument that the court should have imposed less restrictive dispositional alternatives. The memorandum decision, filed Nov. 25, 2025, in *In re C.F. and I.F.*, upheld the lower court's December 2024 termination order.
The case represents a cycle of repeated child welfare interventions involving domestic violence between the parents. In 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services initially filed an abuse and neglect petition against both parents, alleging domestic violence between the couple, substance abuse by both parents, and untreated mental health issues affecting the mother.
Despite these serious allegations, both parents successfully completed post-adjudicatory improvement periods designed to address the identified problems and protect the children. The family was reunited when the parents regained custody of C.F. and I.F. in January 2023, suggesting initial progress in addressing the underlying issues that had endangered the children.
However, less than one year after regaining custody, the situation deteriorated. In November 2023, the DHS filed a second abuse and neglect petition, alleging that the parents had once again exposed their children to domestic violence. According to court documents, the children disclosed multiple new incidents of violence between their parents, indicating that the domestic violence pattern had resumed despite the previous intervention and improvement period.
The petition specifically alleged that the father failed to protect the children from domestic violence by remaining in a relationship with the mother despite their documented history of violent incidents. The ongoing domestic turmoil in the household had severe consequences for the children's well-being and development. Both children began manifesting severe dysfunctional behaviors, and their academic performance suffered as they repeatedly fell asleep in school, indicating the psychological and physical toll of their home environment.
During the adjudicatory hearing held in April 2024, the father stipulated to the allegations against him. He acknowledged failing to protect his children and admitted to remaining in a relationship with the mother despite their long history of domestic violence. The circuit court accepted this stipulation and formally adjudicated the father of abusing and/or neglecting both children.
Following the adjudication, the father filed a written motion requesting another post-adjudicatory improvement period, essentially seeking another opportunity to address the problems and maintain his parental rights. The circuit court held a hearing to consider this motion, but ultimately decided that termination of parental rights was the appropriate remedy given the circumstances.
The circuit court's December 9, 2024, order terminated the father's parental rights to both children. This decision reflected the court's determination that the pattern of domestic violence and the father's failure to protect the children warranted the most severe intervention available under child protection law.
The father appealed this decision to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, arguing that the circuit court erred by failing to impose a less restrictive dispositional alternative rather than proceeding directly to termination. This argument suggested that other options, such as another improvement period or continued supervision, would have been more appropriate given the circumstances.
However, the Supreme Court of Appeals disagreed with this characterization. In its memorandum decision, the high court determined that oral argument was unnecessary for resolution of the appeal and that the circuit court's termination order should be affirmed. The court applied Rule 21 of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure, which allows for summary disposition in appropriate cases.
The decision highlights the serious consequences that can result when parents repeatedly expose children to domestic violence, even after successfully completing improvement programs. The case demonstrates that courts will consider the totality of circumstances, including past interventions and their effectiveness, when determining whether parental rights should be terminated.
The ruling also underscores the legal principle that a parent's failure to protect children from known dangers, particularly domestic violence, can constitute abuse or neglect sufficient to warrant termination of parental rights. The fact that both parents had previously completed improvement periods unsuccessfully worked against them in this case, suggesting a pattern of behavior that was unlikely to change.
For child welfare practitioners and family law attorneys, the case serves as a reminder that successful completion of initial improvement periods does not guarantee permanent resolution of underlying problems. Courts will closely scrutinize whether parents have genuinely addressed the root causes of child endangerment, and repeated failures to protect children can result in the ultimate sanction of parental rights termination.
The memorandum decision represents the final resolution of this case at the state level, with the father's parental rights to both C.F. and I.F. now permanently terminated under West Virginia law.