In re: D.L.-1, D.L.-2, and G.L.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the termination of petitioner father L.W.’s parental rights to D.L.-1, D.L.-2, and G.L. The court rejected challenges to the adjudication, case plan, and termination, concluding that the petitioner stipulated to adjudication, failed to comply with improvement-period services, and was properly subject to termination. The decision is a memorandum decision issued per curiam.

Holdings

1. Petitioner was not entitled to challenge the sufficiency of his adjudication on appeal because he voluntarily stipulated to the adjudication, failed to object, and thereby invited any alleged error.
2. The circuit court did not err in permitting the DHHR to file the family case plan because the plan included services reasonably designed to address the substance-abuse and domestic-violence conditions underlying the adjudication.
3. The circuit court did not violate petitioner's right to be heard by conducting the dispositional hearing in his absence because he had actual notice, failed to appear, did not request a continuance, and was represented by counsel at the hearing.
4. Termination of petitioner's parental rights was proper because he failed to participate in the improvement period, there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse or neglect could be substantially corrected, and termination was necessary for the children's welfare.

Questions Presented

1. Whether petitioner could challenge the sufficiency of his adjudication as an abusing parent after voluntarily stipulating to the adjudication and failing to object below.
2. Whether the DHHR's family case plan adequately addressed the conditions of abuse and neglect, including substance abuse and domestic violence.
3. Whether the circuit court erred by conducting the dispositional hearing in petitioner's absence.
4. Whether the circuit court properly terminated petitioner's parental rights based on his failure to participate in the improvement period and the finding that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse or neglect could be substantially corrected.

Disposition

affirmed