In Re: K.L. and A.L., 17-0561

Background

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition after injuries to child K.L.; amended petition added allegations against father D.L. for failing to provide food, shelter, clothing, medical care, or supervision.
Father (D.L.) stipulated to the amended petition at adjudication and was adjudicated an abusing parent.
Father was incarcerated for portions of the proceedings and had no contact with the children for at least two years and provided no financial, emotional, or material support.
At the May 2017 dispositional hearing (father still incarcerated) he moved to continue pending a July parole hearing and requested a post-dispositional improvement period; both were denied.
The circuit court found no reasonable likelihood father could correct conditions of abuse/neglect, concluded termination was necessary for the children’s welfare, and terminated his parental rights on June 6, 2017.
Father appealed arguing the court erred by denying the continuance and by terminating his rights without granting an improvement period; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by denying a continuance of the dispositional hearing	D.L.: hearing should be continued until after his parole so he could participate and seek relief	DHHR: Rule 5 forbids delaying abuse-and-neglect proceedings for other proceedings (e.g., criminal/parole)	Affirmed — continuance properly denied under Rule 5; proceedings cannot be delayed pending criminal matters
Whether the court erred by denying an improvement period	D.L.: should have been granted an improvement period (post‑disposition) to remedy abandonment	DHHR/guardian: father unlikely to participate successfully; incarceration and two‑year abandonment make an improvement period futile	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; father failed to show likelihood of full participation; incarceration would prevent meaningful participation
Whether termination was improper because it relied on incarceration	D.L.: termination was based solely on incarceration	DHHR/guardian: court considered additional factors (abandonment, failure to support/care) and statutory criteria	Affirmed — termination supported by multiple factors and statutory finding of no reasonable likelihood of correction; termination necessary for children’s welfare
Whether permanency procedures were being followed for the children	D.L.: (not directly argued)	Court/DHHR: must pursue permanency reviews and secure permanent placement within Rule 43 timeframe	Affirmed/Reminder — court must hold quarterly permanency reviews and secure permanent placement within 12 months unless extraordinary circumstances exist

Key Cases Cited

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (discussing clearly erroneous standard and appellate review)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (incarceration may be relevant to termination; factors to evaluate)
In re M.M., 236 W.Va. 108, 778 S.E.2d 338 (circuit court discretion to grant/deny improvement periods)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (discretionary nature of improvement periods)
In re Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (parent must show by clear and convincing evidence likelihood of full participation in improvement period)
In re Emily, 208 W.Va. 325, 540 S.E.2d 542 (an improvement period must commence no later than the dispositional hearing granting it)
In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (termination may be used without intervening less restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood of correction exists)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (termination is the most drastic remedy under the statute)
State v. Michael M., 202 W.Va. 350, 504 S.E.2d 177 (priority to secure suitable adoptive home; placement guidance)
James M. v. Maynard, 185 W.Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (guardian ad litem role continues until child is placed in permanent home)