In re L.L. and H.L.-1

1
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
In re L.L. and H.L.-1
No. 25-799 (Kanawha County CC-20-2025-JA-150 and CC-20-2025-JA-151)
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Petitioner Father H.L.-21 appeals the Circuit Court of Kanawha County’s October 28, 2025,
order terminating his parental rights to L.L. and H.L.-1, arguing that the court erred in denying his
request to continue the matter for additional time to participate in services and in not imposing a
less restrictive dispositional alternative.2 Upon our review, we determine that oral argument is
unnecessary and that a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate.
See W. Va. R. App. P. 21.
The DHS filed a petition in May 2025 alleging that the petitioner educationally neglected
both children, as L.L. had twenty-five unexcused absences from school and H.L. had eighteen
unexcused absences from school. The DHS further alleged that then-seven-year-old L.L.’s
academic progress had been so severely impacted that he could not count higher than ten and
needed to repeat kindergarten. The DHS also alleged that the parents were abusing drugs,
fraudulently using food stamps to pay rent, and not providing sufficient food to the children. At
the preliminary hearing, the circuit court ordered the petitioner to submit to random drug screens.
In June 2025, the DHS filed an amended petition alleging that the petitioner tested positive for
amphetamine and methamphetamine and failed to drug test on two occasions. The circuit court
held an adjudicatory hearing in July 2025, and the court found that the petitioner was an abusing
and neglecting parent due to substance abuse and educational neglect.
The circuit court held a dispositional hearing in October 2025. A DHS case manager
testified that the petitioner had not complied with services or drug screens. Specifically, the case
manager testified that the petitioner only completed six of forty-eight required drug screens, all of
which were positive for illicit substances including amphetamine and methamphetamine. The case
manager also testified that the petitioner had not participated in any supervised visits with the
children. The petitioner then testified that he participated in three or four parenting and adult skills
1 The petitioner appears by counsel Jason S. Lord. The West Virginia Department of Human
Services (“DHS”) appears by counsel Attorney General John B. McCuskey and Assistant Attorney
General Carl E. Hostler. Counsel Jennifer R. Victor appears as the children’s guardian ad litem.
2 We use initials where necessary to protect the identities of those involved in this case. See
W. Va. R. App. P. 40(e). Because one of the children and the petitioner share the same initials, we
refer to them as H.L.-1 and H.L.-2, respectively.
FILED
October 14, 2026
C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA

2
classes, had not participated in any classes since July 2025, and had missed several drug screens.
However, the petitioner claimed that he was participating in an outpatient drug treatment program
which allowed him to perform self-administered drug tests to receive his prescribed Suboxone.
The petitioner also expressed his willingness to enter inpatient drug rehabilitation. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the petitioner moved to continue the dispositional hearing for thirty days
and hold its ruling in abeyance to allow him to enter inpatient drug treatment.
The circuit court denied the petitioner’s motion to continue disposition, finding that it
“would be an exercise in futility because the [petitioner] had many opportunities to cooperate with
services and failed” and that no good cause was shown to support a continuance. The court found
that the petitioner failed to participate in the services offered, including random drug screens and
substance abuse treatment, and, on the few occasions he participated in drug screens, he tested
positive for illicit substances. Additionally, the petitioner reportedly did not participate in
supervised visitation with the children. Ultimately, the court found that there was no reasonable
likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be substantially corrected in the near
future and that termination of the petitioner’s parental rights was necessary for the welfare of the
children. Therefore, the court terminated the petitioner’s parental rights to the children.3 It is from
the dispositional order that the petitioner appeals.
On appeal from a final order in an abuse and neglect proceeding, this Court reviews the
circuit court’s substantive rulings for abuse of discretion, factual findings are reviewed for clear
error, and issues of law are reviewed de novo. Syl. Pt. 1, In re K.S., -- W. Va. --, 930 S.E.2d 400
(2026). Before this Court, the petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion
to continue disposition and hold the dispositional hearing in abeyance to allow him additional time
to comply with services as his testimony that he participated in an outpatient drug treatment
program and was willing to enter inpatient treatment was sufficient to support this request.4 This
Court has held that a motion to continue is at “the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling
will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a showing that there has been an abuse of discretion.”
Syl. Pt. 3, in part, In re Mark M., 201 W. Va. 265, 496 S.E.2d 215 (1997) (quoting Syl. Pt. 2, State
v. Bush, 162 W. Va. 168, 255 S.E.2d 539 (1979)). “Whether there has been an abuse of discretion
in denying a continuance must be decided on a case-by-case basis in light of the factual
circumstances presented, particularly the reasons for the continuance that were presented to the
trial court at the time the request was denied.” Id. at 266, 496 S.E.2d at 216, Syl. Pt. 4, in part
3 The mother’s parental rights were also terminated. The permanency plan for the children
in adoption in a kinship placement.
4 In his argument, the petitioner asserts that the circuit court should have awarded him an
improvement period. However, the petitioner does not cite to or include a written motion for an
improvement period in the record on appeal, nor does it appear from the record that he filed such
a motion. See W. Va. R. App. P. 10(c)(7) (requiring the petitioner’s brief to include “citations that
pinpoint when and how the issues in the assignments of error were presented to the lower
tribunal”). As we have explained, “[a] circuit court may not grant an . . . improvement
period . . . unless the respondent to the abuse and neglect petition files a written motion requesting
the improvement period.” Syl. Pt. 5, State ex rel. P.G.-1 v. Wilson, 247 W. Va. 235, 878 S.E.2d
730 (2021) (emphasis added). As such, the petitioner is entitled to no relief.

3
(quoting Bush, 163 W. Va. at 169, 255 S.E.2d at 540, Syl. Pt. 3). Here, the petitioner’s reason for
the continuance was not compelling, given that it was, essentially, an admission to having failed
to participate in the proceedings thus far. The record supports the court’s conclusion that a
continuance would be an “exercise in futility” because of the petitioner’s failure to participate in
services and continuous use of drugs throughout the proceedings. As such, we conclude that the
circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion.
The petitioner also argues that the circuit court erred in terminating his parental rights
instead of implementing a less restrictive dispositional alternative. However, we have held that
“[t]ermination of parental rights . . . may be employed without the use of intervening less
restrictive alternatives when it is found that there is no reasonable likelihood . . . that conditions of
neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected.” Syl. Pt. 5, in part, In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va.
558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (quoting Syl. Pt. 2, In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114
(1980)). West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(d) provides that there is no reasonable likelihood that the
conditions of abuse or neglect can be substantially corrected when a parent has “habitually abused
or [is] addicted to alcohol, controlled substances or drugs, to the extent that proper parenting skills
have been seriously impaired” and the parent has “not responded to or followed through the
recommended and appropriate treatment which could have improved the capacity for adequate
parental functioning.” Here, the circuit court’s finding that there was no reasonable likelihood such
conditions could be corrected in the near future is supported by the record. As discussed above,
the record reflects that the petitioner continued to use drugs throughout the case and did not
participate in services, or visitation with the children. See In re Katie S., 198 W. Va. 79, 90 n.14,
479 S.E.2d 589, 600 n.14 (1996) (“We have previously pointed out that the level of interest
demonstrated by a parent in visiting his or her children while they are out of the parent’s custody
is a significant factor in determining the parent’s potential to improve sufficiently and achieve
minimum standards to parent the child.” (citation omitted)). In addition to finding that there was
no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be substantially corrected,
the court found that termination of the petitioner’s parental rights was necessary for the children’s
welfare—a finding that the petitioner does not challenge on appeal. See W. Va. Code § 49-4-
604(c)(6) (allowing a court to terminate parental rights “[u]pon a finding that there is no reasonable
likelihood that the conditions of neglect or abuse and be substantially corrected in the near future
and[] when necessary for the welfare of the child”). As such, the court did not err in terminating
the petitioner’s parental rights.
For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its
October 28, 2025, order is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
ISSUED: October 14, 2026

4
CONCURRED IN BY:
Chief Justice C. Haley Bunn
Justice William R. Wooton
Justice Charles S. Trump IV
Justice H. L. Kirkpatrick
Justice James W. Flanigan