In Re: A.L., 17-0287

Background

In Aug 2015 a neighbor reported hearing a child being hit; CPS found bruises/welts and soiled/dried-mud clothing on A.L. at petitioner T.L.’s home.
DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition (Sept 2015) alleging nonaccidental trauma; an amended petition added prior out-of-state proceedings and terminations of petitioner’s parental rights.
In Jan 2016 petitioner stipulated to excessive corporal punishment and was adjudicated an abusing parent; she requested a post-adjudicatory improvement period which DHHR and the guardian opposed.
DHHR moved to terminate parental rights, citing aggravating circumstances and arguing reasonable efforts to preserve the family were not required.
The circuit court denied petitioner a post-adjudicatory improvement period and, on Mar 1, 2017, terminated petitioner’s parental, custodial, and guardianship rights; the child remained in foster care with adoption as the permanency plan.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (T.L.)	Defendant's Argument (DHHR / Guardian)	Held
Whether the court erred by denying a post-adjudicatory improvement period	T.L. argued she completed an improvement period previously and would participate in services now	DHHR/guardian argued petitioner’s history (prior terminations, lack of benefit from past services) shows she is unlikely to fully participate; aggravating circumstances excuse reasonable efforts	Denial affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; petitioner failed to show by clear and convincing evidence she was likely to fully participate
Whether DHHR had to make reasonable efforts to preserve the family	T.L. contended she was denied reunification services	DHHR argued aggravating circumstances (prior involuntary terminations) relieve DHHR of that duty	Court held aggravating circumstances existed; DHHR was not required to make reasonable efforts
Whether termination of parental rights was appropriate	T.L. argued termination was improper without offering services	DHHR/guardian argued prior history and recent abuse show no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected	Termination affirmed — no reasonable likelihood conditions could be substantially corrected; termination permissible without intermediate alternatives
Permanency obligations of the circuit court	N/A	Parties noted adoption was planned; court must timely secure permanent placement	Court reminded lower court of Rule 43 twelve‑month permanency requirement and Rule 39(b) review obligations

Key Cases Cited

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for circuit-court fact findings in abuse/neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (discussion of appellate review and permanency timelines)
In re: M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (2015) (trial court discretion to grant or deny improvement periods)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996) (discretionary nature of improvement periods)
In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (termination permissible where no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (termination standards under statutory scheme)
State v. Michael M., 202 W.Va. 350, 504 S.E.2d 177 (1998) (priority of adoption and considerations for permanent placement)
James M. v. Maynard, 185 W.Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (1991) (guardian ad litem duties continue until child placed in permanent home)