Opinion ID: 1394560
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: At the heart of the claims of Brian H. is the sufficiency of the proof against him that led to the circuit court's conclusions that the children were indeed abused and neglected children as a result of his actions. Without the proper evidence, the findings are meaningless. As we have previously stated: W. Va.Code, 49-6-2(c) [1980], requires the State Department of Welfare [now the Department of Health and Human Resources], in a child abuse or neglect case, to prove `conditions existing at the time of the filing of the petition ... by clear and convincing proof.' The statute, however, does not specify any particular manner or mode of testimony or evidence by which the State Department of Welfare is obligated to meet this burden. Syllabus pt. 1, In the Interest of S.C., 168 W.Va. 366, 284 S.E.2d 867 (1981). Additionally, [t]he standard of proof required to support a court order limiting or terminating parental rights to the custody of minor children is clear, cogent and convincing proof. Syl. pt. 6, In re: Willis, 157 W.Va. 225, 207 S.E.2d 129 (1974). In its findings and conclusions, the circuit court concluded that the children were abused and neglected not so much by the acts of the appellant himself, but by the acts of others in their lives, especially the children's paternal grandparents, where the children were placed pursuant to court order. These conclusions were reached after more substantive abuse and neglect allegations had been levied against the children's mother and stepfather, including the charge that the stepfather's presence endangered the children's safety, and that the children's mother refused to end his presence around the children. We are ever mindful that any semblance of an issue regarding Brian H.'s fitness as a parent arose only during the course of these proceedings. Brian H.'s role in the children's life, while limited, was not in question at the time that the original petition was filed. This is not to say that this Court condones the father's actions, or as the case may be, his limited role in the children's lives. It is simply to view such behavior against the entire backdrop of these children's lives. We are especially concerned that the father may have condoned the interference with Robin M.'s communication with the children. Giving the trial court the deference it deserves under our standard of review, we find that there was no error in adjudicating the children abused and/or neglected with respect to their father. B.