Relating to loss of parental rights after a third petition for a child’s removal
Summary
HB2369 amends West Virginia’s abuse and neglect statutes governing parental “improvement periods,” which are court-supervised opportunities for a parent to correct conditions that led to a child’s removal. The bill keeps the existing framework for when the Department of Human Services must seek termination of parental rights, but it tightens the rules for when a court may grant, extend, or repeat improvement periods. It preserves the current categories of cases that can trigger mandatory termination efforts, such as prolonged foster care, severe abuse, abandonment, certain violent or sexual crimes, and prior involuntary terminations.
The bill’s main change is to limit how many improvement periods a parent may receive in a case involving the same child or children. It sets a general cap of three filings-based improvement periods, limits parents with one prior termination of parental rights to no more than two improvement periods for later-born children, and limits parents with two or more prior terminations or a termination plus relinquishment to one improvement period for later-born children. It also reinforces deadlines, requires individualized family case plans, and maintains the requirement that the parent demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence a likelihood of full participation.
Impact
HB2369 would amend West Virginia Code §§49-4-605 and 49-4-610, narrowing judicial discretion in abuse and neglect proceedings by imposing stricter limits on repeated improvement periods. In practice, this would make it harder for parents to obtain multiple opportunities to work toward reunification after repeated removals or prior terminations of parental rights, while still allowing courts to grant limited extensions when compelling circumstances and the child’s best interests are shown. The bill would affect parents, children in foster care, the Department of Human Services, and circuit courts handling child welfare cases.
Sentiment
The bill’s stated purpose and caption suggest a policy preference for faster permanency and fewer repeated reunification attempts after multiple removals. Although no committee transcript or recorded vote is provided, the bill text reflects a generally child-protection and permanency-oriented approach, emphasizing limits on delay and repeated improvement periods. The overall sentiment appears supportive of stronger intervention when a parent has a history of failed reunification or prior terminations.
Contention
The likely point of contention is the balance between child permanency and parental rehabilitation. Supporters would likely argue that repeated improvement periods can prolong instability for children and delay permanent placement, especially in cases involving prior terminations or repeated petitions. Opponents would likely focus on the risk of cutting off reunification opportunities too early, particularly where parents may have changed circumstances, need more time for treatment or services, or face barriers such as incarceration, medical treatment, or substance use recovery. The bill also raises concerns about how rigid limits may affect judicial discretion in individualized child welfare cases.