A child’s safety. A family’s connections. A more stable future.

Experience across the child welfare system

Ms. Diehl’s child welfare practice has placed her in several distinct roles within the system: serving as Guardian ad Litem for children, representing parent respondents and non-offending respondents, and representing grandparents, relatives, and caregivers. She has also handled child welfare appeals and complex litigation arising from abuse and neglect proceedings.

Those roles carry very different legal and ethical responsibilities. They have also provided perspective from multiple points within the child welfare system: the child who needs protection, the parent trying to preserve or rebuild a family, the grandparent or relative trying to provide a safe home, and the courts and agencies charged with making extraordinarily consequential decisions.

• Guardian ad Litem work representing the best interests of children
• Representation of parent respondents and non-offending respondents
• Representation involving grandparents, relatives, kinship caregivers, and other caregivers
• West Virginia abuse and neglect proceedings
• Child welfare appeals
• Complex child welfare litigation
• Placement and permanency issues
• Interstate/ICPC placement matters

Protecting safety. Preserving belonging.

Children need safety. They also need stability, familiarity, relationships, community, and a sense of belonging. Protecting children and preserving families are not necessarily competing goals.

Sometimes removing a child from a parent or home is necessary for that child’s safety. Foster care serves an important role when a child cannot safely remain at home and an appropriate family or kinship placement is not available. It should be used when necessary, rather than simply because it is available.

Removal can also separate a child from siblings, grandparents, relatives, pets, school, friends, neighbors, activities, routines, and almost everything familiar. Alongside the essential question, “How do we keep this child safe?”, there is another question worth asking:

“How much of this child’s world can we safely preserve?”

Recognizing the people already in a child’s life

West Virginia’s child welfare process recognizes the importance of identifying relatives and other potential placement resources. In practice, however, identifying a name is not always the same as meaningfully exploring whether that person can provide a safe and appropriate home.

Grandparents, relatives, kinship caregivers, and other people with meaningful connections to a child should be identified and considered as early as possible. Waiting months to explore those relationships can have lasting consequences: children form new attachments, cases move toward permanency, and family resources that might have been viable at the beginning can become increasingly difficult to pursue.

Early, meaningful consideration of family and kinship resources helps keep safe existing relationships in view. The focus is on appropriate options that support both a child’s safety and the connections that matter to that child.

Placement, permanency, and interstate concerns

Stability involves more than an address. It includes dependable relationships, a familiar community, and a realistic path toward permanency.

Interstate placements present additional challenges. When a potential relative or kinship placement is located outside West Virginia, the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) can require coordination between agencies and completion of home-study requirements before placement can occur. Those processes can take months and, in some cases, substantially longer.

During that time, the child’s life does not stand still. Relationships develop, permanency decisions approach, and prolonged uncertainty can itself become consequential. Diehl Law pays particular attention not only to compliance with interstate requirements, but to what delay means for the child and the family relationships at stake.

Thoughtful advocacy within a complex system

Effective child welfare advocacy requires understanding what the law requires and the distinct roles and responsibilities of courts, agencies, attorneys, Guardians ad Litem, foster parents, parents, relatives, and caregivers. It also requires close attention to where the case stands in the legal process, the evidence and record, available legal options, deadlines, and upcoming proceedings.

When the process is not functioning as it should, representation includes examining what remedies may be available and how to raise the relevant issues. That work calls for an understanding of the system’s responsibilities, practical realities, and limitations.

Diehl Law values due process, careful preparation, and practical problem-solving. No outcome can be promised.

Child welfare appeals

Some child welfare matters do not end with the circuit court. Appellate representation requires careful review of the record, identification and preservation of legal issues, analysis of the circuit court’s rulings, and focused written advocacy.

Diehl Law’s child welfare experience includes appellate work arising from abuse and neglect proceedings. Appellate consultation may also be appropriate when counsel or a party needs to evaluate the procedural history of a case, the existing record, and potential issues for review.

Before sharing details about a child welfare matter

The firm must check for conflicts before discussing extensive confidential information. Begin with names, roles, the county, and basic case information. Please do not send allegations, medical records, court documents, or a detailed family history through an initial inquiry.

After appropriate conflict screening, a child welfare consultation or case review may include review of selected pleadings, orders, reports, or other case materials in advance of the meeting. This allows consultation time to focus on where the case stands, available legal options, and the questions the client should be considering. Documents should be provided only after conflict screening and when requested or authorized by the firm.

A request for a consultation is separate from a request for ongoing representation. Paid consultations and privately retained matters are considered subject to conflicts, availability, and the firm’s express agreement.