In Re: I.N. and N.N.
16-0394
| W. Va. | Nov 21, 2016Background
- DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition (Sept. 2015) alleging petitioner B.H. and the mother engaged in domestic violence in the children’s presence; mother had a history of substance abuse and children were not properly fed or clothed.
- Mother stipulated at preliminary hearing; DHHR worker testified petitioner reported domestic violence and that he left the children in mother’s care; circuit court removed children to DHHR custody.
- Adjudicatory hearing (Dec. 2015) found both parents abused the children; petitioner was granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period with supervised visitation.
- During supervised contact, N.N. was hospitalized and alleged petitioner sexually abused her; I.N. alleged physical abuse by petitioner; petitioner failed a polygraph and was denied further contact.
- At dispositional hearing (Mar. 2016) petitioner denied abuse but admitted domestic violence with the mother, knowledge of mother’s long-term drug use, and failure to protect the children; circuit court terminated petitioner’s custodial rights (Apr. 8, 2016).
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | DHHR / Respondents’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court erred in terminating petitioner’s custodial rights | B.H. argued he corrected conditions and it was in N.N.’s best interest to be placed with him; claimed strong bond and psychological-parent status | Court below and DHHR argued continued allegations of sexual/physical abuse, failure to protect children, history of mother’s drug abuse, and petitioner’s failed polygraph showed no likelihood of correction | Affirmed. Court found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be substantially corrected and termination was in children’s best interests |
| Whether petitioner should have been granted placement of N.N. specifically | Petitioner emphasized long cohabitation and bond with N.N.; asserted psychological-parent status | DHHR pointed to N.N.’s disclosure of sexual abuse, hospitalization, and safety concerns; argued supervised contact was inappropriate | Denied. Court held child’s safety and best interests precluded return to petitioner |
| Whether petitioner’s psychological-parent claim required different analysis | Petitioner argued psychological-parent status favored placement | No motion or judicial recognition of psychological-parent status in the record; DHHR relied on safety findings | Court did not recognize psychological-parent rights absent formal finding; terminated custodial rights nonetheless |
| Whether findings were clearly erroneous under standard of review | Petitioner argued facts did not support termination | DHHR and guardian emphasized multiple consistent findings, admissions, and persistence/worsening across proceedings | Findings not clearly erroneous; appellate court affirmed based on record plausibly supporting termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (standard of review for circuit-court factual findings in abuse-and-neglect matters)
- In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (articulating appellate review standard reiterated in this decision)
- In re Clifford K., 217 W.Va. 625, 619 S.E.2d 138 (W. Va. 2005) (definition and treatment of "psychological parent")