In Re: B.F. and M.K., 16-0831

DHHR filed an abuse and neglect petition after a teacher reported that M.F. (a child with autism) returned from petitioner J.K.’s care with visible facial injuries; other witnesses also saw bruising on children after contact with petitioner.
Petition alleged petitioner and M.K.’s mother engaged in domestic violence in the children’s presence and physically/emotionally abused the children; amended petition alleged interference with children’s statements.
Preliminary hearings and an adjudicatory hearing elicited testimony from a DHHR worker, a teacher, a non-offending mother, and a psychologist who diagnosed petitioner with a personality disorder with antisocial/narcissistic features and said he denied the abuse.
Circuit court adjudicated petitioner an abusing parent to B.F. and M.K., ordered psychological evaluations, and sustained removal of the children from the home.
Petitioner requested a post-adjudicatory improvement period but failed to appear for MDT meetings and the dispositional hearing, denied the allegations, presented no evidence of willingness to participate, and the court denied the improvement period and terminated his parental rights.
West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, finding the circuit court’s credibility determinations and legal conclusions not clearly erroneous and termination appropriate where petitioner failed to accept responsibility or participate.

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	DHHR / Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether adjudication as an abusing parent was supported by clear and convincing evidence	J.K. argued the evidence was insufficient; injuries could be from roughhousing or self-harm	Multiple witnesses observed injuries after children were in petitioner’s care; psychologist testified petitioner denied abuse; petitioner provided only self-serving denial	Affirmed; court found clear-and-convincing evidence and credited state witnesses over petitioner
Whether petitioner was entitled to a post-adjudicatory improvement period	J.K. claimed he timely requested and was willing to fully participate	Petitioner failed to attend MDT and dispositional hearings and refused to acknowledge abuse, making treatment unlikely to succeed	Affirmed denial; petitioner failed to show by clear and convincing evidence likelihood of full participation
Whether termination of parental rights was proper without first granting an improvement period	J.K. argued termination was premature without an improvement period	Court found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected given petitioner’s nonparticipation and abandonment of proceedings	Affirmed termination under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604 and controlling precedent

In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (describing standard of review for circuit-court factual findings) (explains clearly erroneous standard)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (clarifying appellate review and standards in abuse/neglect cases)
Brown v. Gobble, 196 W.Va. 559, 474 S.E.2d 489 (defining the "clear and convincing" evidentiary standard)
In re Christina L., 194 W.Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (holding that abuse of one child in the home can render other children abused or at risk)
In re Charity H., 215 W.Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (holding parent must show by clear and convincing evidence likelihood of full participation to obtain improvement period)
In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (failure to acknowledge abuse can make improvement period futile)
In re R.J.M., 164 W.Va. 496, 266 S.E.2d 114 (authorizes termination without less-restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood of correction)
In re Kristin Y., 227 W.Va. 558, 712 S.E.2d 55 (discusses termination standard under statutory scheme)