Opinion ID: 1267601
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: doris s. and melissa c.

Text: Like David E., the Appellants, Melissa C. and Doris S., argue that the trial court was not presented with clear and convincing evidence which would justify a termination of their parental rights. As support for their argument, these Appellants assert there was no evidence of abuse and neglect other than the probably tainted and unreliable proffered statements of the children. Further, the Appellants maintain that there was never a rationally-based allegation that the living children were in any kind of danger. Finally, the Appellants contend that they voluntarily did everything in their power to cooperate with law enforcement personnel in investigating Allen Ray's death, yet claim they were deemed uncooperative because they could not provide more information about the child's death and because they would not fabricate an acceptable explanation for the death. [28] In contrast, the Appellee asserts that the Appellants' parental rights were properly terminated on the grounds that there was no reasonable likelihood that conditions of abuse and neglect could be substantially corrected based on the evidence developed which included: 1) the child's death in the Appellants' home; 2) the information supplied by the Appellants was inconsistent with the police investigation and the Appellants failed to cooperate in solving the child's death; and 3) the evidence of the Appellants' gross neglect of these children. First, with regard to Doris S., in syllabus point three of In re Betty J.W., 179 W.Va. 605, 371 S.E.2d 326 (1988), we held that W.Va.Code, 49-1-3(a) (1984), in part, defines an abused child to include one whose parent knowingly allows another person to commit the abuse. Under this standard, termination of parental rights is usually upheld only where the parent takes no action in the face of knowledge of the abuse or actually aids or protects the abusing parent. Id. at 606, 371 S.E.2d at 327, Syl. Pt. 3; see Syl. Pt. 3, In re Jeffrey R.L., 190 W.Va. at 25-26, 435 S.E.2d at 163-64. The evidence presented against Doris S. included not only the statements made by her daughter and Mike C., which placed her in the room when her son, Allen Ray, suffered his fatal injuries, but also Rosalee's statement to her aunt, that the child's mother had told her not to tell anyone about the events surrounding her brother's death. Moreover, the only explanations [29] offered by Doris S. are inconsistent with the uncontroverted medical evidence admitted before the trial court which established that Allen Ray's death was not accidental in nature. Consequently, it is obvious that Doris S. not only refused to protect her child, but insists on protecting the suspected abuser of her child. [30] With regard to Melissa C.'s contention that clear and convincing evidence was not presented to justify termination of parental rights, West Virginia Code § 49-1-3 defines an abused child as a child whose health or welfare is harmed or threatened by... [a] parent, guardian or custodian who knowingly or intentionally inflicts, attempts to inflict or knowingly allows another person to inflict, physical injury or mental or emotional injury, upon the child or another child in the home.... Id. § 49-1-3(a)(1). Thus, it is clear that pursuant to the provisions of West Virginia Code § 49-1-3(a)(1), the definition of child abuse encompasses a parent, guardian or custodian who knowingly allows another person to inflict physical injury upon another child residing in the same home as the parent and his/her child(ren), even though that child is not the parent's natural or adopted child. Precedent in this area includes In re Darla B., 175 W.Va. 137, 331 S.E.2d 868 (1985), a case in which the appellant father asserted that his parental rights should not have been terminated because he was not a direct participant in the acts giving rise to the petition. [31] Id. at 141, 331 S.E.2d 873. In upholding the termination, [w]e note[d] that appellant ... supports the testimony of his wife entirely, even though the explanation is inconsistent with the medical evidence. [32] Further, he testified that he was in attendance when the first injury to Darla B. occurred, which involved the child's right frontal lobe. [33] Importantly, the explanation given for this injury by both appellants is inconsistent with the medical evidence. Aside from his direct support of his wife's version of the reasons for the infant's injuries, it is ludicrous for him to assert that he should be held blameless for his nonaction in protecting his child. Id. (footnotes added). Next, in In re Scottie D., 185 W.Va. 191, 406 S.E.2d 214 (1991), the Department of Human Services appealed the circuit court's final order which concluded that the appellee father did not neglect or abuse his children... within the meaning of W.Va.Code, 49-1-3 [1984] and further found that there was no evidence of abuse by the appellee. Id. at 193, 406 S.E.2d at 216. The evidence indicated that three-year-old Rebecca, the natural daughter of the appellee's wife, was admitted to the emergency room suffering from severe submersion burns to both her feet; a laceration on one foot; cigarette burns which were secondary to the submersion burns; a laceration on her lip; bruises on her back; and spots on her head where her hair had apparently been pulled out. Id. While Rebecca's mother's testimony indicated that all of the child's injuries were accidental in nature, both Rebecca and Scottie D., [34] the appellee's natural son, who was not adopted by the appellee's wife, testified that the injuries had been intentionally inflicted by the appellee and his wife. Id. at 193-94, 406 S.E.2d at 216-17. We found that the father's testimony was consistent with ... [the mother's] to the extent that it [wa]s supportive of her testimony. In addition to denying the commission of any abusive acts toward the children, the appellee essentially testified that he believed that the injuries to the children occurred in the manner as expressed to him by his wife.... Id. at 195, 406 S.E.2d at 218. Finally, the appellee testified that he was not present at the time Rebecca suffered the burns to her feet. Id. Upon review, we fail[ed] to see how the circuit court reached the conclusion that the appellee's children [we]re not abused within the meaning of W.Va.Code, 49-1-3... insofar as their father is concerned. Id. at 197, 406 S.E.2d at 220. Accordingly, we held that [t]ermination of parental rights of a parent of an abused child is authorized under W.Va.Code, 49-6-1 to 49-6-10, as amended, where such parent contends nonparticipation in the acts giving rise to the termination petition but there is clear and convincing evidence that such nonparticipating parent knowingly took no action to prevent or stop such acts to protect the child. Furthermore, termination of parental rights of a parent of an abused child is authorized under W.Va.Code, 49-6-1 to 49-6-10, as amended, where such nonparticipating parent supports the other parent's version as to how a child's injuries occurred, but there is clear and convincing evidence that such version is inconsistent with the medical evidence. 185 W.Va. at 197, 406 S.E.2d at 220 and Syl. Pt. 2. In a case analogous to the instant case, In re Jeffrey R.L., the infant child was diagnosed as suffering from battered child syndrome. Jeffrey R.L.'s mother denied knowing the cause of her child's injuries and suggested that the child had sustained the injuries while rolling around in his crib. 190 W.Va. at 27, 435 S.E.2d at 165. A pediatrician testified that it would have been impossible for Jeffrey to sustain the injuries in the manner suggested by his mother, indicating rather that great force would be necessary to cause fractures of the ribs, and that the other fractures ... [the child] sustained were `consistent with a twisting, torsion, shaking of limbs[.]' Id. at 27-28, 435 at 166 (some alterations in original). Both of the child's parents admitted that some trauma occurred, but neither parent admitted to inflicting the trauma upon the child or identified the perpetrator. Id. at 29, 435 S.E.2d at 167. Finally, a DHHR representative testified that while they had no evidence that either of Jeffrey's parents caused his injuries, if the DHHR does not know who the perpetrator of the abuse is then they believe the child would be at risk to be placed back into the home. Id. at 30, 435 S.E.2d at 168. In determining whether the trial court erred in failing to terminate the parental right of both parents, as well as whether the trial court abused its discretion in returning custody of Jeffrey to his mother, we expounded on the parents' duty to identify the perpetrator of child abuse before a circuit court should ever consider reuniting the child with the parents. Id. at 32-35, 435 S.E.2d at 170-73. We adamantly stated that [e]stablishing the identity of the person or persons who inflicted these injuries on Jeffrey R.L. is crucial to his health, safety and welfare.... Yet, despite the fact that the perpetrator has not been identified, the circuit court returned custody of Jeffrey R.L. to his mother. We find that the circuit court clearly erred in returning Jeffrey R.L. to his mother before the perpetrator who inflicted such extensive physical abuse on this helpless infant has been identified. There is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse can be substantially corrected because the perpetrator of Jeffrey R.L.'s physical abuse has not been identified. Jeffrey R.L., due to his young age and physical condition, needs consistent close interaction with fully committed adults. Jeffrey R.L.'s health, safety and welfare would be seriously threatened if he were to be placed back into the environment where he suffered extensive physical injuries when his abuser has not been identified. Therefore, because it appears that Jeffrey R.L.'s abuser will never be identified, this Court will not place him back into the environment where he suffered his abuse. Id. at 35, 435 S.E.2d at 173. We held in syllabus point three of Jeffrey R.L. that: Parental rights may be terminated where there is clear and convincing evidence that the infant child has suffered extensive physical abuse while in the custody of his or her parents, and there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse can be substantially corrected because the perpetrator of the abuse has not been identified and the parents, even in the face of knowledge of the abuse, have taken no action to identify the abuser. Id. at 25-26, 435 S.E.2d at 164; see In re Danielle T., 195 W.Va. 530, 535, 466 S.E.2d 189, 194 (1995) (terminating parental rights and finding that trial court committed reversible error in granting improvement period where neither of child's parents acknowledged abuse or neglect of child and parents sought to explain Danielle's burn and malnutrition conditions with testimony inconsistent with the medical evidence); In re Brianna Elizabeth M., 192 W.Va. 363, 367, 452 S.E.2d 454, 458 (1994) (reversing lower court's decision granting father improvement period, where father insisted that he did not know how such horrendous injuries had been inflicted, and he repeatedly refused to acknowledge that his wife could be the abuser even in the fac[e] of overwhelming medical evidence of extreme child abuse[,] stating that the rights of children to be free from abuse require that a parent's first loyalty be to the protection of his or her children); State v. Jessica M., 191 W.Va. 302, 308, 445 S.E.2d 243, 249 (1994) (stating that it is further troubling to this Court that ... [mother] has failed to acknowledge ... [husband's] abusive behavior towards her children and to identify him as the abuser). Even though we have recognized the constitutionally-protected right of the natural parent to the custody of his or her minor children, we have also emphasized that such right is not absolute. In re Jeffrey R.L., 190 W.Va. at 32, 435 S.E.2d at 170. Furthermore, we explained that this right to custody is limited and qualified by the fitness of the parent to honor the trust of the guardianship and custody of the child. In re: Willis, 157 W.Va. 225, 238, 207 S.E.2d 129, 137 (1973). Thus, the above-mentioned case law clearly establishes that the term knowingly as used in West Virginia Code § 49-1-3(a)(1), does not require that a parent actually be present at the time the abuse occurs, but rather that the parent was presented with sufficient facts from which he/she could have and should have recognized that abuse occurred. This interpretation of the term knowingly arises from a parent's paramount duties of loyalty to his/her child(ren) and to provide such child(ren) with a safe environment free from abuse and neglect, both of which are crucial to ensuring a child's health, safety and welfare. Extending our decision in In re Jeffrey R.L., we hold that a parent's parental rights to his/her child(ren) may be terminated: 1) where there is clear and convincing evidence that the parent knowingly allowed another person to inflict extensive physical injury upon another child residing in the same home as the parent and his/her child(ren), even though the injured child is not the parent's natural or adopted child; and 2) where there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse can be substantially corrected because the perpetrator of the abuse has not been identified and the parent, even in the face of knowledge of the abuse, has taken no action to identify the abuser. See Syl. Pt. 3, 190 W.Va. at 25-26, 435 S.E.2d at 163-64. We find that even though the deceased child was not Melissa C.'s, she knowingly allowed another person to inflict extensive physical injury upon the child who resided in the same home as she and her children. Unlike the Appellant David E., the clear and convincing evidence established that Melissa C. was actually present at the time her nephew, Allen Ray, was shaken to death. Melissa C., like the other two Appellants, has never taken steps to identify the abuser and has only offered evidence which conflicts with the medical evidence. Thus, both Doris S. and Melissa C. simply have chosen to ignore the unrefuted evidence presented against them, choosing to continue to protect the abuser's identity. It is that choice which ultimately caused the trial court's proper termination of their parental rights. We therefore find no abuse of discretion.