In Re: D.H.-1, G.H., B.H., and A.H., 16-1123

Background

DHHR investigated allegations that petitioner (D.H.-2) sexually abused his girlfriend’s niece, E.W., who lived in the household and became pregnant; evidence indicated petitioner was likely the father of the child (A.H.).
Petitioner denied the abuse, asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege at the adjudicatory hearing, and was criminally charged for sexual abuse and transporting a minor across state lines; he was also found in contempt for violating a no-contact order with E.W.
The circuit court found petitioner had sex with E.W. in the home where his other children (D.H.-1, G.H., B.H.) lived and concluded A.H. was the product of an inappropriate sexual relationship.
Petitioner requested a less-restrictive dispositional alternative and post-termination visitation but presented no evidence and continued to deny the allegations without acknowledging responsibility.
The circuit court terminated petitioner’s parental rights to all children and denied post-termination visitation, conditioning any future reconsideration on petitioner’s acknowledgement of responsibility and participation in sexual-offender treatment; this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (D.H.-2)	Defendant's Argument (DHHR / Guardian)	Held
Whether the court erred by terminating parental rights without imposing less-restrictive alternatives	Termination was excessive; a less-restrictive disposition should have been considered	Termination proper because petitioner refused to acknowledge abuse and could not remediate conditions	Affirmed — termination appropriate where no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected due to petitioner’s refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing (WV Code §49-4-604)
Whether denial of post-termination visitation was erroneous	Petitioner sought post-termination visitation and argued he should be allowed contact	Continued visitation would be detrimental given petitioner’s failure to address or remediate abusive conduct	Affirmed — denial appropriate; no evidence visitation would be in children’s best interests (court may allow visitation only if not detrimental)
Whether petitioner’s silence at proceedings could be used as evidence	Petitioner invoked Fifth Amendment and argued privilege barred adverse inference	DHHR/guardian argued silence supported negative inference because it prevented remediation and treatment	Affirmed — court permissibly considered petitioner’s refusal to testify as supporting culpability and inability to correct conditions
Whether permanency obligations were addressed (court guidance)	N/A (petitioner raised no reversible error here)	Lower court must follow rules for permanency reviews and timely permanent placement	Court reiterated duty to hold periodic permanency reviews and secure permanent placement within twelve months per Rules 39 and 43

Key Cases Cited

In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89 (2011) (standard of review and affirming termination when findings not clearly erroneous)
In re Katie S., 198 W.Va. 79 (1996) (termination may be used without less-restrictive alternatives when no reasonable likelihood conditions can be corrected)
In re Timber M., 231 W.Va. 44 (2012) (failure to acknowledge abuse makes problem untreatable)
In re Christina L., 194 W.Va. 446 (1995) (court may consider post-termination visitation only if it is in child’s best interest and not detrimental)
In re Daniel D., 211 W.Va. 79 (2002) (syllabus adopting Christina L. standards for visitation after termination)
State v. Michael M., 202 W.Va. 350 (1998) (priority for securing a suitable adoptive home in determining permanent placement)
James M. v. Maynard, 185 W.Va. 648 (1991) (guardian ad litem’s role continues until child placed in permanent home)
In re Ryan B., 224 W.Va. 461 (2009) (terminated parents ordinarily remain obligated to pay child support under statutory guidelines)