In Re: I.S., P.M., and B.A., 17-0013

DHHR filed abuse/neglect petition after three-year-old I.S. suffered a subdural hematoma, required emergency surgery, and was found to have multiple retinal hemorrhages and widespread bruising and injuries.
Medical experts (pediatric critical care, neurosurgery, ophthalmology) testified injuries were inconsistent with petitioner’s explanations (falls) and were indicative of nonaccidental trauma; petitioner’s own expert called a fall an "extremely improbable" cause.
Petitioner (mother J.S.) provided multiple, inconsistent explanations and denied responsibility or identifying any other perpetrator, though she admitted she should have protected I.S. more.
Circuit court adjudicated petitioner an abusing parent, denied an improvement period, and terminated her parental rights to I.S., P.M., and B.A.; placements: I.S. and P.M. with non-offending fathers, B.A. to foster/adoptive home.
Petitioner appealed, arguing erroneous adjudication, improper expert testimony, wrongful termination, denial of post-termination visitation, and denial of an improvement period. Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DHHR proved abuse/neglect by clear and convincing evidence	J.S.: DHHR failed to prove her conduct constituted abuse or neglect	DHHR: injuries, expert testimony, and J.S.’s inconsistent explanations show nonaccidental trauma while children in her care	Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported adjudication of abuse/neglect
Admissibility/scope of expert testimony	J.S.: treating physicians opined about biomechanical causation beyond their expertise	DHHR: experts qualified; opinions based on experience, research, and literature, not improper biomechanical speculation	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion admitting expert testimony under Rule 702
Termination of parental rights	J.S.: termination improper because she did not cause injuries; no direct proof she was abuser	DHHR: severe nonaccidental injury occurred while child in her care; she failed to identify perpetrator or show conditions could be corrected	Affirmed: termination appropriate where severe abuse occurred and parents did not identify abuser or correct conditions
Post-termination visitation	J.S.: court should have granted post-termination visitation	DHHR/guardian: visitation would be inappropriate given severity of injuries and potential detriment	Affirmed: court acted within discretion to deny visitation; no evidence visitation served best interest

In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (standard of review for circuit court findings in abuse/neglect cases)
In Interest of S.C., 168 W.Va. 366, 284 S.E.2d 867 (W. Va. 1981) (DHHR burden: clear and convincing proof)
In re Joseph A., 199 W.Va. 438, 485 S.E.2d 176 (W. Va. 1997) (clarifying DHHR proof requirements)
In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (deference to circuit court credibility findings)
McDougal v. McCammon, 193 W.Va. 229, 455 S.E.2d 788 (W. Va. 1995) (trial court discretion on evidentiary rulings; Rule 702)
In re Emily, 208 W.Va. 325, 540 S.E.2d 542 (W. Va. 2000) (circuit court weighs witness credibility)
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W.Va. 381, 497 S.E.2d 531 (W. Va. 1997) (appellate courts defer to factfinder on credibility)
In re Jeffrey R.L., 190 W.Va. 24, 435 S.E.2d 162 (W. Va. 1993) (termination permissible when infant suffered extensive abuse and parents fail to identify perpetrator)
In re Harley C., 203 W.Va. 594, 509 S.E.2d 875 (W. Va. 1998) (application of Jeffrey R.L. where perpetrator unidentified)
In re Christina L., 194 W.Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (W. Va. 1995) (post-termination visitation discretionary; consider best interest and potential detriment)