Court Opinion

ID: 9840900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 16:14:40.762371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:53.331617
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                September 20, 2023
                                                                                   EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                              STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                               SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

                            SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                       OF WEST VIRGINIA

In re L.T., J.T.-1, and B.T.

No. 22-840 (Randolph County CC-42-2021-JA-89, CC-42-2021-JA-90, and CC-42-2021-JA-91)

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Father J.T.-2 1 appeals the Circuit Court of Randolph County’s October 19, 2022,
order terminating his parental rights to the children, L.T., J.T.-1, and B.T. 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.

        In December 2021, the DHHR filed a petition alleging that petitioner physically abused
L.T. based on injuries observed by the child’s teacher and school nurse. L.T. came to school
presenting injuries including a busted lip, bruises, swelling, and cuts on his face. Petitioner was in
jail awaiting trial on the charge of child abuse resulting in bodily injury throughout the pendency
of the abuse and neglect case.

        The court held an adjudicatory hearing in August 2022 and heard testimony from L.T.’s
Head Start teacher, the school’s registered nurse, and a Child Protective Services (“CPS”) worker.
The teacher testified that when L.T. arrived at school with visible injuries, the child said to her,
“my daddy do this to me.” The teacher took him to the school nurse, who observed the same
injuries and additionally noticed bruises in different stages of healing. Photos of the child’s injuries
were submitted into evidence with no objection by petitioner. According to the CPS worker, the
mother disclosed that petitioner had been violent toward her and the children on prior occasions.
Petitioner did not present any witnesses and elected not to testify to protect his Fifth Amendment
right against self-incrimination in the parallel criminal case. Based on the evidence presented, the

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel Stephen B. Nanners. The West Virginia Department of
Health and Human Resources (“DHHR”) appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey
and Assistant Attorney General Lee Niezgoda. Counsel Gregory R. Tingler 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). Additionally, because one of the children and petitioner share the same
initials, we will refer to them as J.T.-1 and J.T.-2, respectively.

                                                   1
court found that petitioner inflicted physical harm upon L.T. and adjudicated petitioner as an
abusive and neglectful parent regarding all the children.

        The court proceeded to disposition in September 2022, at which time the DHHR and the
guardian supported termination of petitioner’s parental rights. Petitioner again chose not to testify
due to the pending criminal case. Petitioner’s counsel advised the court that petitioner was not
requesting an improvement period because he believed that the DHHR had not met its burden of
proof at adjudication. Because no improvement period was requested, the court found that
petitioner “does not believe that there is anything that he did that was inappropriate and that he has
no deficits as a parent which could be addressed with an improvement period.” The court further
found that petitioner had “taken up no effort in defense” and had not recognized the conditions of
abuse and neglect. Moreover, the court noted that petitioner was in jail on felony charges relating
to the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, the court found no reasonable likelihood
that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be substantially corrected in the near future and, in
consideration of the dispositional alternatives, it was for the best interests and welfare of the
children to terminate petitioner’s parental rights. 3 This appeal followed.

        On appeal from a final order in an abuse and neglect proceeding, this Court reviews the
circuit court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Syl. Pt. 1, In re
Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011). Petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in
adjudicating him as an abusive and neglectful parent because the DHHR failed to prove conditions
of abuse and neglect by clear and convincing evidence. We find, however, that the evidence was
sufficient to support petitioner’s adjudication.

       This Court has held that,

                 “[West Virginia Code § 49-4-601(i)], requires the [DHHR], in a child abuse
       or neglect case, to prove ‘conditions existing at the time of the filing of the petition
       . . . by clear and convincing [evidence].’ The statute, however, does not specify any
       particular manner or mode of testimony or evidence by which the [DHHR] is
       obligated to meet this burden.” Syllabus Point 1, In Interest of S.C., 168 W. Va.
       366, 284 S.E.2d 867 (1981).

Syl. Pt. 1, In re Joseph A., 199 W. Va. 438, 485 S.E.2d 176 (1997) (citations omitted). Further,
“[c]lear and convincing evidence means that more than a mere scintilla of evidence has been
presented to establish the veracity of the allegations of abuse and/or neglect, but it does not impose
as exacting an evidentiary burden as criminal proceedings, which generally require proof beyond
a reasonable doubt.” In re A.M., 243 W. Va. 593, 598, 849 S.E.2d 371, 376 (2020). Finally, West
Virginia Code § 49-1-201 defines “abused child” as

               [a] child whose health or welfare is being harmed or threatened by . . . [a]
       parent . . . who knowingly or intentionally inflicts, attempts to inflict, or knowingly

       3
        The mother’s rights were also terminated. The permanency plan for the children is
adoption in the current placement.
                                                  2
       allows another person to inflict physical injury or mental or emotional injury upon
       the child or another child in the home.

        Here, the record clearly demonstrates that the court’s findings were sufficient to support
adjudication. Despite petitioner’s argument that the DHHR failed to prove this was not an isolated
incident of corporal punishment, both the teacher and the school nurse observed L.T.’s various
injuries. Importantly, the nurse observed bruises in different stages of healing, indicating prior
instances of abuse. Photos of the child were admitted to evidence and were consistent with the
injuries described by the teacher and nurse. Contrary to petitioner’s arguments on appeal, the
DHHR is not required to present expert testimony to meet its burden under the above-cited case
law, which states that the statute does not specify any particular manner or mode of testimony
required. See Syl. Pt. 1, In re Joseph A., 199 W. Va. 438, 485 S.E.2d 176 (1997). Further, petitioner
did not testify in the proceeding, which the court is permitted to consider as evidence of culpability.
See Syl. Pt. 2, W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Res. ex rel. Wright v. Doris S., 197 W. Va. 489, 475
S.E.2d 865 (1996).

        Based on the forgoing, we find that there was clear and convincing evidence that petitioner
physically abused L.T., thereby demonstrating that all the children in the home were abused
children in accordance with the statutory definition of an abused child. Therefore, we find the court
did not err in adjudicating petitioner.

        We likewise find no error in the court’s order terminating petitioner’s parental rights. The
court found that petitioner did not recognize the abuse he perpetrated on the children. In that regard,
we have previously held,

       [i]n order to remedy the abuse and/or neglect problem, the problem must first be
       acknowledged. Failure to acknowledge the existence of the problem, i.e., the truth
       of the basic allegation pertaining to the alleged abuse and neglect or the perpetrator
       of said abuse and neglect, results in making the problem untreatable and in making
       an improvement period an exercise in futility at the child’s expense.

In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44, 55, 743 S.E.2d 352, 363 (2013) (citation omitted). Therefore, the
court correctly found that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse could be
substantially corrected in the near future and that termination of petitioner’s parental rights was in
the best interests of the children. Because the court had ample evidence upon which to make these
findings, we find no error in the termination of petitioner’s parental rights. See W. Va. Code § 49-
4-604(c)(6) (permitting circuit court to terminate parental rights upon finding no reasonable
likelihood conditions of abuse can be substantially corrected in the near future and when necessary
for the child’s welfare).

        Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court,
and its order of October 19, 2022, is hereby affirmed.

                                                                                            Affirmed.

                                                  3
ISSUED: September 20, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker
Justice Tim Armstead
Justice John A. Hutchison
Justice William R. Wooton
Justice C. Haley Bunn

                                    4