In Re: B.M. and A.M., 17-0114

Background

DHHR filed an abuse & neglect petition alleging petitioner (father J.M.) sexually abused his 13-year-old stepdaughter C.J.; two biological children (B.M., A.M.) and another stepchild lived in the home.
C.J. disclosed multiple incidents (digital vaginal penetration, forced touching of petitioner’s genitals, fondling of breasts, attempted anal and oral contact, and exposure to pornography) occurring over time and in two residences.
Forensic interviewer Maureen Runyon (Child Advocacy Center) interviewed C.J.; petitioner objected to Runyon’s testimony as hearsay at adjudication. The court overruled the objection and admitted Runyon’s testimony.
Circuit court found C.J.’s disclosures credible and adjudicated petitioner for sexual molestation; it denied visitation and later, at disposition, terminated petitioner’s parental rights to B.M. and A.M. and denied post-termination visitation.
On appeal petitioner challenged (1) admission of Runyon’s testimony, (2) the court’s credibility weighing of the sexual-abuse evidence, and (3) denial of post-termination visitation. The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	DHHR/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Admissibility of Runyon’s testimony under hearsay exception (W.Va. R. Evid. 803(4))	Runyon’s testimony contained inadmissible hearsay because statements were obtained for forensic/prosecutorial purposes, not treatment.	Runyon’s interview was part of a treatment pathway at the Child Advocacy Center; statements were made to promote medical/therapeutic treatment and thus fit Rule 803(4).	Admission proper: interview aimed at promoting treatment; Runyon qualified as forensic counselor and statements met the medical-diagnosis/treatment exception.
Credibility of C.J.’s disclosures versus defense evidence	Petitioner argued the child’s behavior and other testimony (mother, grandmother, petitioner) showed fabrication; court improperly favored Runyon/C.J.	Court relied on non-leading interview technique, specificity, consistency over time and across residences; trial court is the factfinder for credibility.	No error: trial court’s credibility findings not clearly erroneous and will not be disturbed on appeal.
Denial of post-termination visitation with petitioner	Petitioner argued he did not abuse his biological children and should have post-termination visitation if children wished.	Evidence showed sexual abuse occurred while other children lived in the home, placing them at risk; visitation would not be in children’s best interests.	No error: circuit court permissibly denied visitation given abuse findings and risk to children.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Payne, 225 W.Va. 602 (2010) (discusses Rule 803(4) and admissibility standards for statements made for treatment).
State v. Pettrey, 209 W.Va. 449 (2001) (therapist/play-therapy interview admissible under medical-diagnosis/treatment exception when statements are for treatment, not solely forensic).
State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641 (1990) (two-part test for admitting hearsay under Rule 803(4): motive consistent with treatment and content reasonably relied upon for diagnosis/treatment).
In re Christina L., 194 W.Va. 446 (1995) (a child residing in a home where abuse occurred may be an abused child if at risk; guidance on visitation and abuse findings).
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89 (2011) (standard of review for abuse and neglect findings; appellate review of circuit court factual findings).