1

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

In re H.G. and K.G.

No. 18-0743 (Roane County 17-JA-133 and 17-JA-134) 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Father K.S., by counsel Lauren A. Estep, appeals the Circuit Court of Roane

County’s July 25, 2018, order terminating his parental rights to H.G. and K.G.

1 The West 

Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (“DHHR”), by counsel Mindy M. Parsley, 

filed a response in support of the circuit court’s order. The guardian ad litem (“guardian”), Betty 

Clark Gregory, filed a response on behalf of the children in support of the circuit court’s order. 

On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a postadjudicatory improvement period.2

This Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal 

arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided

by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record 

presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these 

reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate under Rule 21 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

In December of 2017, the DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition alleging that 

petitioner and his live-in girlfriend failed to provide necessary food, clothing, shelter, and 

supervision for the children. Specifically, the DHHR alleged that the home was in a deplorable 

and dangerous condition. A Child Protective Services (“CPS”) worker observed “excessive 

clutter, prescription bottles and animal waste strewn throughout the home.” The DHHR further 

alleged that a bathroom was used to keep chickens and one bedroom was used to house cats. The 

children did not have a proper bedroom and slept on a couch. The CPS worker reported “an 

 

1Consistent with our long-standing practice in cases with sensitive facts, we use initials 

where necessary to protect the identities of those involved in this case. See In re K.H., 235 W.

Va. 254, 773 S.E.2d 20 (2015); Melinda H. v. William R. II, 230 W. Va. 731, 742 S.E.2d 419 

(2013); State v. Brandon B., 218 W. Va. 324, 624 S.E.2d 761 (2005); State v. Edward Charles 

L., 183 W. Va. 641, 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990).

2Petitioner does not raise an assignment of error regarding the termination of his parental 

rights. 

FILED

April 19, 2019

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

overwhelming odor of animal . . . feces” in the home. Additionally, in December of 2017, the 

children were sent home from school with head lice. The DHHR alleged that the condition of the 

home caused the children emotional trauma. The children reported that they were embarrassed 

by the way their clothes smelled and that showering did not help eliminate the smell. They were 

also embarrassed that they were sent home from school for having lice. The CPS worker also 

observed “excessive clutter outside the family home that caused safety hazards” to the children.

Subsequently, an amended petition was filed to include allegations that petitioner has a 

substantial criminal history in Ohio and Pennsylvania and that he made numerous harassing and 

threatening social media posts regarding the removal of the children. Additionally, the DHHR 

alleged that his parental rights to at least one other child were involuntarily terminated. Further, 

the amended petition alleged that petitioner’s girlfriend’s rights to a disabled son were 

involuntarily terminated in Kanawha County, West Virginia, due, in part, to allegations of sexual 

abuse. On January 29, 2018, petitioner stipulated to the allegations of abuse and neglect and 

moved for a post-adjudicatory improvement period.

On June 4, 2018, the circuit court held a dispositional hearing. Petitioner testified that he 

was unable to see his shortcomings as a parent and blamed others for his problems. He admitted 

to being arrested at least fifteen times for criminal activity. Petitioner’s psychological evaluation 

was admitted into evidence, which indicated “a significant attempt to conceal information, to 

minimize his responsibility, to deny critical issues, and to skew his responses to present himself 

in an unrealistically positive manner.” The report concluded that petitioner had no motivation for 

improvement, and that his prognosis for parental improvement was “extremely poor.” 

Petitioner’s girlfriend testified that the home was cleaned after the children were removed and 

that she planned to keep it in “good condition.” After hearing evidence, the circuit court denied 

petitioner’s motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period and found that despite his 

admissions at adjudication, petitioner “failed to acknowledge that any of his behaviors or 

conduct caused this case to be filed and his children to be in state custody.” The circuit court 

further found that petitioner was unwilling to work with his girlfriend to clean the house or “even 

pick up after himself. He denies any shortcomings, and says that he needs others to point them 

out to him. He has gone to great lengths to try to convince this Court that he is the victim, when, 

in fact, he has been the perpetrator.” Moreover, the circuit court found no reasonable likelihood 

that petitioner could substantially correct the conditions of abuse and neglect in the near future 

and that the termination of petitioner’s parental rights was necessary for the children’s welfare. 

Ultimately, the circuit court terminated petitioner’s parental rights in its July 25, 2018, 

dispositional order.

3

It is from this order that petitioner appeals.

The Court has previously established the following standard of review:

“Although conclusions of law reached by a circuit court are subject to de 

novo review, when an action, such as an abuse and neglect case, is tried upon the 

 

3Petitioner’s girlfriend’s custodial rights to the children were also terminated and the

children’s mother voluntarily relinquished her parental rights. According to respondents, the 

permanency plan for the children is adoption by their maternal aunt.
3

facts without a jury, the circuit court shall make a determination based upon the 

evidence and shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether 

such child is abused or neglected. These findings shall not be set aside by a 

reviewing court unless clearly erroneous. A finding is clearly erroneous when, 

although there is evidence to support the finding, the reviewing court on the entire 

evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

committed. However, a reviewing court may not overturn a finding simply 

because it would have decided the case differently, and it must affirm a finding if 

the circuit court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record 

viewed in its entirety.” Syl. Pt. 1, In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 

470 S.E.2d 177 (1996). 

Syl. Pt. 1, In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011). Upon our review, this Court 

finds no error in the proceedings below. 

In his sole assignment of error, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in denying his

motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period. Petitioner claims that he and his girlfriend 

“cleaned the home almost immediately upon the children’s removal” and that the guardian 

visited the home thereafter, found that the parties had made “great progress,” and did not find 

any “obvious safety hazards in the home.” Petitioner also notes that he testified at the 

dispositional hearing that he was willing to participate in services. However, we do not find his

argument compelling. 

Pursuant to West Virginia Code § 49-4-610(2)(B), a circuit court may grant a parent an 

improvement period when the parent “demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that the 

[parent] is likely to fully participate in the improvement period.” Additionally, “West Virginia 

law allows the circuit court discretion in deciding whether to grant a parent an improvement

period.” In re M.M., 236 W. Va. 108, 115, 778 S.E.2d 338, 345 (2015).

Here, petitioner failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he would be 

likely to fully participate in an improvement period. Although he claims the house was cleaned 

after the children were removed, the circuit court found that petitioner did not help his girlfriend 

clean the home and that he failed to make any improvements during the proceedings. 

We have held that

[i]n order to remedy the abuse and/or neglect problem, the problem must first be 

acknowledged. Failure to acknowledge the existence of the problem, i.e., the truth 

of the basic allegation pertaining to the alleged abuse and neglect or the 

perpetrator of said abuse and neglect, results in making the problem untreatable 

and in making an improvement period an exercise in futility at the child’s 

expense.

In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 55, 743 S.E.2d 352, 363 (2013) (quoting In re: Charity H., 215 

W. Va. 208, 217, 599 S.E.2d 631, 640 (2004)). The record shows that petitioner was unable or 

unwilling to recognize his shortcomings as a parent and blamed others for his problems. The 
4

circuit court specifically found that petitioner “failed to acknowledge that any of his behaviors or 

conduct caused this case to be filed and his children to be in state custody.” Because petitioner 

failed to acknowledge the conditions of abuse and neglect or take responsibility for his actions, it 

is clear that the issues could not be remedied. Based on this evidence, we find no error in the 

circuit court’s denial of petitioner’s motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period. 

For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its 

July 25, 2018, dispositional order is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: April 19, 2019

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker 

Justice Margaret L. Workman

Justice Tim Armstead

Justice Evan H. Jenkins

Justice John A. Hutchison