In re A.T., M.W., A.W., and S.W., 21-0345

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petitions in May 2020 alleging petitioner (father) exposed four children to domestic violence, emotionally abused them, abused alcohol, and failed to provide necessities and medical care.
Adjudicatory hearing held Feb. 2021 (after continuances); DHHR presented multiple witnesses and the court took judicial notice of in‑camera testimony from two children; petitioner testified and denied wrongdoing.
Circuit court adjudicated petitioner an abusing parent, finding exposure to domestic violence, alcohol impairment of parenting, and failures to provide for the children.
At disposition (Mar. 2021) CPS testified DHHR offered no services because petitioner would not acknowledge any fault; the children (through testimony and in‑camera statements) refused contact with petitioner.
Circuit court found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected given petitioner’s refusal to acknowledge abuse or accept treatment and terminated his parental rights (Apr. 8, 2021); children placed with a relative for adoption (one child remains with a nonabusing mother).
Petitioner appealed, arguing insufficient clear-and-convincing evidence and improper weight to DHHR witnesses; West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the termination (Jan. 12, 2022).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DHHR)	Defendant's Argument (J.W. III)	Held
Whether the DHHR proved abuse/neglect by clear and convincing evidence	Witness testimony and children’s in‑camera statements proved domestic violence exposure, alcohol impairment, and failure to provide	Petitioner denied allegations, testified he was a strict but good father, and disputed witnesses’ credibility	Court affirmed adjudication: credibility for factfinder, evidence supported findings by clear and convincing standard
Whether termination of parental rights was proper under WV Code §49‑4‑604	No reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected because father refused to acknowledge wrongdoing or pursue treatment; termination necessary for children’s welfare	Petitioner claimed willingness to accept services and improve; contested necessity of termination	Court affirmed termination: petitioner’s failure to acknowledge the problem showed inadequate capacity to remedy abuse/neglect and met statutory grounds for termination

In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for bench findings of fact in abuse/neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (reiterating standard of review for adjudication and findings)
In re F.S., 233 W. Va. 538, 759 S.E.2d 769 (2014) (definition and application of clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard)
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W. Va. 381, 497 S.E.2d 531 (1997) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
In re Timber M., 231 W. Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (2013) (failure to acknowledge abuse/neglect makes the problem untreatable)
In re R.J.M., 164 W. Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (1980) (termination may be used without intervening less-restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood of correction)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W. Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (2011) (affirming termination standard under West Virginia Code §49‑4‑604)