Opinion ID: 1296935
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: This Court's Prior Consideration of Pertinent Statutes

Text: This Court addressed the statutory protections in West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources ex rel. Wright v. Doris S., 197 W.Va. 489, 475 S.E.2d 865 (1996), as they affect the issue of utilization of evidence in the civil and criminal contexts against the interests of a parent also accused of a crime related to the alleged abuse and neglect of children. This Court explained: Such a parent or guardian may be invoking his/her right to remain silent pursuant to the Fifth Amendment because that individual also may be facing criminal charges arising out of the abuse and neglect of the child. The rights of the criminally accused are sufficiently protected, however, by the following statutory provisions: 1) West Virginia Code § 49-6-4(a) (1995) which allows medical and mental examinations of the child or other parties involved in an abuse and neglect proceeding provides that [n]o evidence acquired as a result of any such examination of the parent or any other person having custody of the child may be used against such person in any subsequent criminal proceedings against such person; 2) West Virginia Code § 49-7-1 (1995) provides that [a]ll records of the state department, the court and its officials, law-enforcement agencies and other agencies or facilities concerning a child as defined in this chapter shall be kept confidential and shall not be released...[;] and 3) West Virginia Code § 57-2-3 (1966) provides that [i]n a criminal prosecution other than for perjury or false swearing, evidence shall not be given against the accused of any statement made by him as a witness upon a legal examination. Id. at 497-98, n. 22, 475 S.E.2d at 873-74, n. 22. In Wright, a case involving the death of child, this Court reviewed the authorities supporting the prevailing rule that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them. Id. at 498, 475 S.E.2d at 874, quoting Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976). [10] In light of that review of authorities, this Court held as follows in syllabus point two of Wright: Because the purpose of an abuse and neglect proceeding is remedial, where the parent or guardian fails to respond to probative evidence offered against him/her during the course of an abuse and neglect proceeding, a lower court may properly consider that individual's silence as affirmative evidence of that individual's culpability. Id. at 492, 475 S.E.2d at 868.