In Re: K.D., 16-0913

DHHR filed an abuse-and-neglect petition (Aug 2015) alleging the mother’s substance abuse and that father D.W. failed to protect child K.D.
Father stipulated at adjudication (Sept 2015) and was granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period with requirements: psychological, parental fitness, and substance-abuse evaluations; parenting and life-skills classes; drug screens; visitation; and participation in meetings/hearings.
Father lived in Tennessee; providers scheduled services on the same day to accommodate travel. He initially participated but attendance declined by Dec 2015.
During the improvement period he visited the child only three times total and once in the four months before disposition; he failed to complete required evaluations, stopped participating in parenting/life-skills services, and did not attend the dispositional hearing.
Service providers testified father failed to maintain contact, did not schedule services or visitation, and failed to contact the child (even for her birthday).
The circuit court denied an extension of the improvement period and terminated father’s parental rights (Aug 8, 2016). Father appealed, arguing denial of extension and termination were improper because financial inability prevented compliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (D.W.)	Defendant's Argument (DHHR / Guardian)	Held
Whether the circuit court erred in denying an extension of the post-adjudicatory improvement period	Financial, automobile, and job problems prevented travel/participation; extension should have been granted	Father provided no record evidence showing finances prevented participation; he also failed to stay in contact to facilitate services	Affirmed: denial proper—father failed to substantially comply and did not maintain contact to facilitate services
Whether termination of parental rights was improper because father lacked funds to comply with services	Termination was premised on his financial inability rather than actual noncompliance	Evidence showed father did not follow the case plan or communicate with providers; no reasonable likelihood he could correct conditions; termination served child's best interests	Affirmed: termination appropriate under WV Code §49-4-604(c)(3) and §49-4-604(a)(6)

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for circuit court factual findings in abuse-and-neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (applying the Tiffany Marie standard and review principles)