The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights for a mother who coached her children to fabricate abuse allegations against their father, according to a memorandum decision filed January 29, 2026.
The case, *In re R.H.-M. and A.H.-M.*, centers on mother T.M., who appealed the Circuit Court of Kanawha County's January 9, 2025, order terminating her parental rights to two children. The mother argued the court erred in adjudicating her and denying her motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period.
The legal proceedings began in July 2023 when the Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition alleging the father physically abused both children and abused alcohol. Initial support for these allegations came primarily from Child Advocacy Center interviews, in which the children described the father's abuse. Notably, at the time of the initial petition, no allegations were made against the mother.
The circuit court ordered psychological evaluation for one of the children, A.H.-M., at the preliminary hearing. However, adjudicatory hearings were repeatedly continued because the child's psychological evaluation remained incomplete. In February 2024, the court made an explicit finding that the mother had failed to take the child to the psychological evaluation and issued a warning: if she failed to take the child to a rescheduled appointment later that month, the court would remove the children from her care.
The case took a dramatic turn in March 2024 when DHS filed an amended petition following completion of A.H.-M.'s psychological evaluation. The then-nine-year-old child revealed to the psychologist that her mother had instructed her to fabricate the original allegations against the father.
According to DHS records cited in the court opinion, the child told the psychologist during evaluation that "we went to Court to tell them Daddy hit me." When the psychologist asked why, the child replied, "I don't know. Mommy said that." This revelation fundamentally altered the trajectory of the case, shifting focus from the father's alleged misconduct to the mother's apparent coaching of the children to make false statements.
The psychological evaluation provided crucial evidence that the original abuse allegations were not genuine accounts of the children's experiences but rather coached statements directed by their mother. This type of evidence is particularly significant in family court proceedings, where child testimony often forms the foundation of abuse and neglect determinations.
The mother's failure to comply with court-ordered psychological evaluations also played a role in the proceedings. Courts typically view non-compliance with evaluation orders as obstructive behavior that can harm children's interests and impede proper case resolution. The February 2024 warning from the circuit court demonstrated judicial frustration with delays in obtaining necessary psychological assessments.
Folling the amended petition and psychological evaluation results, the circuit court proceeded with adjudication against the mother and ultimately terminated her parental rights. The mother's appeal challenged both the adjudication itself and the court's denial of her request for a post-adjudicatory improvement period, which would have provided additional time to address identified deficiencies.
Post-adjudicatory improvement periods are discretionary remedial measures that courts may grant to parents who demonstrate potential for rehabilitation. These periods allow parents additional time to complete services, demonstrate improved parenting capacity, or address specific concerns identified during proceedings. The denial of such a period suggests the circuit court found the mother's conduct too egregious or her rehabilitation prospects too poor to warrant additional time.
The Supreme Court of Appeals determined that oral argument was unnecessary and issued a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court's order. This procedural choice indicates the appellate court viewed the case as relatively straightforward, without novel legal issues requiring extensive oral advocacy.
Parental rights termination represents the most severe intervention available in child protection cases, permanently severing the legal relationship between parent and child. Courts apply heightened scrutiny to such cases, requiring clear and convincing evidence that termination serves the children's best interests.
The coaching of children to make false allegations represents a particularly serious form of parental misconduct that can cause significant psychological harm. Such behavior not only undermines the integrity of legal proceedings but also places children in impossible positions, forcing them to lie about their experiences and potentially damaging their relationships with both parents.
This case highlights the critical role of professional psychological evaluations in family court proceedings. The delayed evaluation initially hindered case progress but ultimately provided decisive evidence regarding the true circumstances of the alleged abuse.
The memorandum decision format indicates the Supreme Court of Appeals viewed this as a routine affirmance without broader precedential implications. The court's citation to West Virginia Rule of Appellate Procedure 21 reflects standard procedures for cases deemed suitable for summary disposition without oral argument.