Background
The West Virginia Department of Human Services filed an abuse-and-neglect petition alleging educational neglect of W.L. and K.L. and parental drug abuse after G.L. tested positive for cocaine at birth. Father D.L. admitted using drugs in the home and neglecting the children’s education. The circuit court granted him post-adjudicatory and post-dispositional improvement periods requiring services that included parenting and life-skills classes, drug screening, therapy, supervised visitation, and substance-abuse education.
Although D.L. completed some services, evidence showed that he participated inconsistently, missed drug screens, repeatedly tested positive for alcohol and sometimes cocaine, and refused to acknowledge a substance-abuse problem. The circuit court terminated his parental rights on June 6, 2025. It later denied post-termination visitation, finding that such contact would be detrimental and confusing as the children moved toward adoption. W.L. and K.L. had expressed that they did not want continued visitation, while G.L., who was an infant when removed, had no bond with D.L.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed. It declined to review D.L.’s challenges to the findings concerning his improvement periods and the termination of his parental rights because he did not timely appeal the June 6 dispositional order. Filing a motion for post-termination visitation did not extend the deadlines for appealing that order, and a timely appeal from the later visitation order could not revive waived challenges to the termination decision.
The court also held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying post-termination visitation. The statutory provision cited by D.L., concerning consideration of a child’s wishes at disposition, did not govern post-termination visitation. Under Rule 15(b)(2)(A), the circuit court properly considered the children’s maturity and wishes, the guardian ad litem’s recommendation, the views of DHS and CASA, the children’s bonds with D.L., the underlying neglect, and other relevant evidence. The record supported the finding that visitation was not in the children’s best interests.
Key Takeaways
- A post-termination visitation motion does not extend the deadline to appeal a final dispositional order terminating parental rights.
- A parent cannot use a timely appeal from a later visitation order to obtain review of termination issues that were not timely appealed.
- In deciding post-termination visitation, a court may consider the wishes of children who are sufficiently mature even if they are younger than fourteen.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that appellate deadlines in abuse-and-neglect cases attach to the final dispositional order and must be observed independently of later visitation proceedings. Counsel seeking review of a termination order must file and perfect that appeal on time.
It also clarifies that post-termination visitation turns on the child’s best interests under Rule 15(b)(2)(A), which permits courts to weigh a sufficiently mature child’s wishes alongside professional recommendations, family bonds, the nature of the neglect, and the parent’s conduct.