The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's termination of parental rights in a case involving severe drug-related child endangerment, rejecting the mother's appeal and request for additional time to improve her circumstances.
In *In re J.M.* (No. 25-6), the high court issued a memorandum decision Jan. 29 upholding the Circuit Court of Kanawha County's December 11, 2024, order terminating T.M.'s parental rights to her child J.M. The mother had appealed the termination and argued the court erred in denying her motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period.
The case began in February 2024 when the West Virginia Department of Human Services filed a petition after law enforcement responded to the parents' home. Officers discovered what the court described as "deplorable condition" with a baggie containing suspected heroin or fentanyl and drug paraphernalia scattered throughout the residence.
According to court documents, law enforcement found powdered substances on plates, straws, and smoking devices distributed across various surfaces in the home. The residence also contained animal waste and trash throughout, creating hazardous living conditions for the child.
The mother waived her right to a preliminary hearing, after which the circuit court ordered DHS to provide comprehensive services. These services included parenting education, adult life skills training, random drug screens, and transportation assistance through bus passes. The court established that the mother could visit her child only after passing three consecutive drug screens.
Following these initial proceedings, the mother filed a motion requesting a post-adjudicatory improvement period, which would have provided additional time to demonstrate her ability to provide safe care for her child.
The case proceeded to an adjudicatory hearing in July 2024, where a Child Protective Services worker provided detailed testimony about the conditions at the time of the child's removal. The CPS worker described the "extreme nature" of animal waste found throughout the home and testified that the residence had been condemned several months before the child's removal.
Crucially, the CPS worker testified that the suspected drug substances were "readily accessible to the child and presented a danger." This testimony highlighted the immediate safety concerns that prompted the state's intervention and ultimately influenced the court's decision to terminate parental rights.
The circuit court's December 2024 order terminated the mother's parental rights, prompting her appeal to the state's highest court. In her appeal, T.M. argued that the circuit court committed error both in denying her request for a post-adjudicatory improvement period and in proceeding with the termination of her parental rights.
However, the Supreme Court of Appeals found no merit in these arguments. The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary and that a memorandum decision affirming the lower court's ruling was appropriate under West Virginia Rule of Appellate Procedure 21.
The case illustrates the serious legal consequences that can result when children are exposed to dangerous drug-related environments. West Virginia, like many states, prioritizes child safety in cases involving substance abuse, particularly when illegal drugs are readily accessible to minors.
Parental rights termination represents one of the most severe interventions available to family courts, permanently severing the legal relationship between parent and child. Courts typically consider such drastic measures only when they determine that a parent cannot provide safe care for their child, even with the assistance of state services.
The Supreme Court of Appeals' decision to issue a memorandum decision rather than a full written opinion suggests the court viewed the case as relatively straightforward given the evidence presented. Memorandum decisions are typically reserved for cases where the legal principles are well-established and the facts clearly support the lower court's ruling.
The case also demonstrates how substance abuse cases in the child welfare system can progress rapidly through the courts when immediate safety concerns are present. The timeline from the initial DHS petition in February 2024 to the Supreme Court's affirmation in January 2026 reflects the urgency with which courts handle cases involving child endangerment.
For families involved in similar proceedings, the case underscores the importance of full compliance with court-ordered services and the serious consequences of maintaining unsafe living conditions for children. The mother's inability to pass the required drug screens necessary for visitation likely factored into the court's ultimate decision.
The termination order clears the way for permanent placement of J.M., potentially through adoption, ensuring the child's long-term safety and stability. The case serves as a reminder of the state's authority to protect children when parental substance abuse creates dangerous living situations.