In Re: O.K., 16-0610

DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition (Oct 2015) related to multiple children after evidence of severe physical and emotional abuse by the children’s stepfather; petitioner J.L. is O.K.’s biological father.
Evidence showed J.L. had minimal contact with O.K. for about three years, provided no financial support, and had not sought visitation or otherwise acted as a father.
DHHR amended the petition to allege abandonment by J.L.; after hearings (Dec 2015–Feb 2016), the circuit court adjudicated O.K. neglected based on abandonment.
J.L. requested a post-adjudicatory improvement period; DHHR initially moved to terminate but then withdrew that request and said services could be provided if an improvement period were granted.
The circuit court held a dispositional hearing (April 2016), denied J.L.’s motion for an improvement period, and in May 2016 entered an order terminating his parental and custodial rights.
On appeal, J.L. argued the court erred by denying an improvement period and by failing to hold a separate dispositional hearing after denying the improvement period; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court erred in denying petitioner’s motion for a post-adjudicatory improvement period	J.L.: court should have granted an improvement period to allow him to remedy parental deficiencies	DHHR & guardian: services could be provided but termination was appropriate given abandonment and lack of meaningful contact/support	Court: Affirmed denial; petitioner’s brief failed to cite legal authority and record support as required, so issue not adequately pursued and no reversible error found
Whether the circuit court erred by not holding a separate dispositional hearing after denying the improvement period	J.L.: procedural error—required separate dispositional hearing after denial of improvement period	DHHR: petitioner did not preserve the claim below; no objection was made at the dispositional hearing	Court: Issue not preserved for appeal (petitioner failed to object/seek continuance); decline to address on merits

In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (standard of review for abuse and neglect bench findings)
In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (bench-findings standard and clearly erroneous rule)
State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294, 470 S.E.2d 613 (W. Va. 1996) (raise-or-waive principle; the law ministers to the vigilant)
Mowery v. Hitt, 155 W.Va. 103, 181 S.E.2d 334 (W. Va. 1971) (appellate courts generally will not decide issues not considered below)
State v. Grimmer, 162 W.Va. 588, 251 S.E.2d 780 (W. Va. 1979) (silence may waive objections to trial errors)
Wimer v. Hinkle, 180 W.Va. 660, 379 S.E.2d 383 (W. Va. 1989) (raise-or-waive rule prevents parties from withholding objections to seek appellate advantage)