Court Opinion

ID: 9960338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 21:18:05.666696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:22.535967
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                      April 15, 2024
                                                                                      C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
                              STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                                SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                         OF WEST VIRGINIA
                            SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

In re L.D. and J.D.-1

No. 23-64 (Wood County CC-54-2022-JA-222 and CC-54-2022-JA-223)

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Father J.D.-21 appeals the Circuit Court of Wood County’s January 4, 2023,
order terminating his parental rights to L.D. and J.D.-1,2 arguing that the DHS failed to establish
by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner committed sexual abuse as alleged in the petition.
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 July 2022, the DHS filed a petition in reference to a referral stating that L.D. disclosed
an incident where she awoke to petitioner “touching her privates” while she was sleeping. In
response to the allegations, Children’s Listening Place conducted a forensic interview with the
child. During the interview, the child disclosed that she sometimes felt unsafe around petitioner
when they were alone. The child further confirmed that she awoke to petitioner touching her genital
area. Another child, J.D.-1, also resided in the home.

        The circuit court held an adjudicatory hearing in September 2022, where it took judicial
notice of the child’s forensic interview. The forensic interviewer testified that during the interview,
the child disclosed that the child awoke to petitioner touching her genital area and that she did not
feel safe with petitioner when they were alone. The child’s mother testified that the child told a

       1
        Petitioner appears by counsel Jeremy B. Cooper. The West Virginia Department of
Human Services appears by counsel Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant Attorney
General James “Jake” Wegman. Counsel Kevin White appears as the children’s guardian ad litem
(“guardian”).

       Additionally, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 5F-2-1a, the agency formerly known as
the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources was terminated. It is now three
separate agencies—the Department of Health Facilities, the Department of Health, and the
Department of Human Services. See W. Va. Code § 5F-1-2. For purposes of abuse and neglect
appeals, the agency is now the Department of Human Services (“DHS”).
       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 they share the same initials, we refer to the child
as J.D.-1 and petitioner as J.D.-2.

                                                  1
family member that petitioner touched her while she was asleep. When the mother confronted
petitioner about the incident, he told her he “would never have done it on purpose” and that “he
thought [the child] was [his wife] and made a mistake.” During petitioner’s testimony, he denied
touching the child and denied making any statement about mistaking the child for his wife. He
further testified that the child had “fibbed” about things in the past but nothing this serious,
explaining that he did not want to call her a liar, but it must be a lie because he would never touch
his children inappropriately.

         Following the testimony and evidence, the circuit court entered an order finding that
petitioner sexually abused L.D. by touching her vaginal area over her underwear while she was
sleeping. In the order, the court found that the child was credible in her statement given during the
forensic interview and that her disclosure was corroborated by her mother’s testimony, “who
testified that her niece told her that [the child] had disclosed that [petitioner] had touched her
vagina; that she confronted [petitioner] that same day with the allegations; and that [petitioner]
admitted that he touched [the child] believing that it was [his wife].” The court further found that
the mother’s testimony was credible, but petitioner’s testimony was not credible. Accordingly, the
circuit court adjudicated petitioner as an abusive parent to both L.D. and J.D.-1 due to the sexual
abuse of L.D. Because petitioner challenges only his adjudication, it is sufficient to note that the
circuit court terminated petitioner’s parental rights following a dispositional hearing in January
2023.3 It is from the dispositional order that petitioner appeals.

        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). First, petitioner argues that the evidence presented
at adjudication was not sufficient to support a finding of sexual abuse. Upon our review, we
disagree. As we have explained,

                 “[West Virginia Code § 49-4-601(i)], requires the [DHS], 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 [DHS] 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). Here, the
DHS clearly satisfied the applicable burden, given the evidence of the child’s disclosures in a
forensic interview, the forensic interviewer’s testimony regarding the child’s disclosures, and the
mother’s testimony regarding petitioner’s admission that he mistakenly believed the child was his
wife. Further, the circuit court specifically found that the child’s disclosures in the forensic
interview and the mother’s testimony were credible, while petitioner’s testimony was not credible.
As we have consistently held, “[a] reviewing court cannot assess witness credibility through a
record. The trier of fact is uniquely situated to make such determinations and this Court is not in a
position to, and will not, second guess such determinations.” Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201

       3
           The permanency plan for the children is to remain in the custody of their mother.

                                                  2
W. Va. 381, 388, 497 S.E.2d 531, 538 (1997). As such, we find no error in the circuit court’s
adjudication of petitioner.

        Finally, petitioner argues that the circuit court’s written findings within the adjudicatory
order are insufficient, pointing out that Rule 27 of the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for Child
Abuse and Neglect Proceedings states that, at the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing, “the court
shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law, in writing or on the record, as to whether the
child is abused and/or neglected.” However, we find that the circuit court’s order comports with
this rule. Specifically, the order details the child’s disclosures during the forensic interview that
petitioner touched her genital area while she was sleeping and found the child’s disclosures to be
credible. The order further details the mother’s testimony regarding petitioner’s admission that he
mistakenly touched the child believing it was his wife and found the mother’s testimony to be
credible. We cannot say that the abuse and neglect process was substantially disregarded or
frustrated by the order, and, thus, petitioner is entitled to no relief. See Syl. Pt. 3, In re Emily G.,
224 W. Va. 390, 686 S.E.2d 41 (2009) (requiring vacation of an order where “the process . . . for
the disposition of cases involving children [alleged] to be abused or neglect has been substantially
disregarded or frustrated”).

       For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court, and its
January 4, 2023, order is hereby affirmed.

                                                                                             Affirmed.

ISSUED: April 15, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

                                                   3