In Re: I.R. and W.R., 16-1108

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petition after allegation that father (R.R.) sexually abused a minor half‑sister (A.C.) who lived in the same home as the two children, I.R. and W.R.
A.C. disclosed multiple incidents: father touched her buttocks, digitally penetrated her, and supplied her alcohol; father denied allegations and did not testify at hearings.
Circuit court adjudicated A.C. as sexually abused, found I.R. and W.R. abused/neglected and at great risk because they lived in the same home.
DHHR did not offer services to father because he refused to acknowledge the abuse; the court found sexual abuse to be an aggravated circumstance and denied an improvement period.
Circuit court found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected, terminated father’s parental rights on November 2, 2016, and denied post‑termination visitation; children were placed with the non‑offending mother.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether children were properly adjudicated abused/neglected	Father: evidence insufficient; challenge adjudication	DHHR/Ct: testimony of A.C. and father’s silence supported adjudication	Adjudication affirmed — testimony and father’s silence supported findings
Whether father was entitled to a post‑adjudicatory improvement period	Father: repeatedly requested improvement period	DHHR/Ct: sexual abuse is an aggravated circumstance; father didn’t acknowledge abuse, making improvement futile	Denial affirmed — aggravated circumstance (sexual abuse) and lack of acknowledgment justified denial
Whether court should have used a less‑restrictive dispositional alternative (e.g., terminate custodial rights only)	Father: should have limited relief to custody rather than full termination	DHHR/Ct: statutory mandate to terminate where parent sexually abused a child and no likelihood conditions can be corrected	Termination affirmed — statute directs termination where parent sexually abused a child and correction unlikely
Whether father should have been granted post‑termination visitation	Father: he supported and loved children; visitation would not be harmful	DHHR/Ct: sexual abuse and lack of acknowledgment make visitation inappropriate; no written motion filed	Denial affirmed — discretionary refusal appropriate given facts and absence of written motion

In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard for reviewing circuit court findings in abuse and neglect cases)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (review standard reiterated)
W.Va. Dept. of Health & Human Res. v. Doris S., 197 W.Va. 489, 475 S.E.2d 865 (1996) (parental silence may be considered affirmative evidence of culpability; improvement period futile if parent fails to acknowledge problem)
In re Emily, 208 W.Va. 325, 540 S.E.2d 542 (2000) (circuit court assesses witness credibility in abuse and neglect proceedings)
In re Travis W., 206 W.Va. 478, 525 S.E.2d 669 (1999) (credibility and factfinding deference to circuit court)
In re Christina L., 194 W.Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (1995) (another child in home where sexual abuse occurred is at risk and may be abused under statute)
In re Marley M., 231 W.Va. 534, 745 S.E.2d 572 (2013) (post‑termination visitation must be requested by written motion)