In Re: J.P., 17-0022

DHHR filed an abuse-and-neglect petition after a hospital removal of newborn J.P., citing extreme, ongoing household squalor (human/animal waste, gnats/flies, mold, exposed wiring, hole to basement) and prior notice from an earlier proceeding.
Parents had previously relinquished rights to an older child in 2015 following similar allegations and were told the home must be made habitable before having children there again.
At adjudication parents admitted the home was unfit but claimed they planned to have the child live elsewhere; the circuit court found that claim not credible and that parents intended to return home with the child.
Circuit court adjudicated the child abused and neglected and, at disposition, terminated both parents’ parental rights; DHHR reports the child is in foster care with a plan for adoption.
On appeal the mother (K.B.) challenged only the adjudication of neglect, arguing the child was never exposed to the home conditions (removed at birth) so there was no actual neglect; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether adjudication of neglect was proper when the child never resided in the filthy home	Mother: removal at birth means child was never exposed to conditions, so there was no actual neglect — court merely speculated about potential harm	DHHR: neglect includes threats to a child’s physical health from a parent’s failure to provide necessary shelter; uninhabitable conditions threatened the child	Adjudication affirmed: conditions threatened the child’s health/safety; parents’ credibility rejected and DHHR proved neglect
Whether DHHR met its burden of proof at adjudication (clear and convincing evidence of conditions at time of filing)	Mother: insufficient proof of present threat because child was not exposed	DHHR: testimony and observations of current, severe conditions satisfied the statutory burden; parents admitted the home was unsuitable	Held: DHHR satisfied its burden; circuit court’s factual findings not clearly erroneous

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard for reviewing circuit court factual findings in non-jury abuse/neglect trials)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (review standard and precedent cited for appellate review)
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W.Va. 381, 497 S.E.2d 531 (1997) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
In Interest of S.C., 168 W.Va. 366, 284 S.E.2d 867 (1981) (DHHR must prove conditions existing at filing by clear and convincing evidence)
In re Joseph A., 199 W.Va. 438, 485 S.E.2d 176 (1997) (clarifies burden and proof modalities for DHHR in abuse/neglect cases)