In Re: K.M., 16-0271

Thirteen-year-old K.M. was admitted to inpatient treatment after sexually abusing his disabled seven-year-old sister; prior in‑state treatment (Highland, River Park) was unsuccessful and he was discharged against medical advice.
K.M. admitted to anally penetrating his sister on three occasions; charged in juvenile delinquency petition with sexual assault and incest and later pled to one count of incest and was adjudicated delinquent.
An adolescent sexual offender risk assessment indicated K.M. might be a community‑treatment candidate only if he fully engaged in therapy; evaluators noted poor engagement and missed appointments.
At disposition, witnesses testified K.M. became unwilling to discuss details of the abuse, raising treatment and public‑safety concerns for community placement; evaluators also cited numerous high‑risk factors and lack of parental support.
The circuit court found K.M.’s home environment and parental non‑support (including prior removal from treatment) impeded rehabilitation, concluded in‑state options were exhausted, and ordered placement in an out‑of‑state inpatient treatment facility.
K.M. appealed, arguing the court failed to impose the least‑restrictive alternative and made insufficient findings to justify out‑of‑state placement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by not imposing least‑restrictive alternative (community treatment)	K.M.: witnesses indicated community treatment could be appropriate; court should have chosen less‑restrictive placement	State/Court: K.M.’s poor engagement, new reluctance to discuss abuse, prior treatment failures, missed appointments, and family environment made community placement unsafe	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; evidence supported inpatient placement
Whether court made sufficient findings to justify out‑of‑state placement	K.M.: court failed to consider all in‑state options (e.g., Chestnut Ridge) and did not make requisite findings for out‑of‑state placement	State/Court: record shows two prior in‑state treatment attempts failed and court expressly found in‑state options insufficient; family factors supported out‑of‑state placement despite visitation concerns	Affirmed — court made adequate factual findings that in‑state facilities were insufficient and justified out‑of‑state placement

State v. Head, 198 W.Va. 298, 480 S.E.2d 507 (1996) (standard of review for circuit court findings and discretionary rulings)
State ex rel. D.D.H. v. Dostert, 165 W.Va. 448, 269 S.E.2d 401 (1980) (least‑restrictive alternative requires consideration of rehabilitation prospects at disposition)
State v. Kirk N., 214 W.Va. 730, 591 S.E.2d 288 (2003) (applies Dostert principle to juvenile disposition)
State v. Frazier, 198 W.Va. 678, 482 S.E.2d 663 (1996) (out‑of‑state placement permitted only after findings that in‑state facilities cannot meet juvenile’s needs)
E.H. v. Matin, 201 W.Va. 463, 498 S.E.2d 35 (1997) (factors to consider when weighing harms of out‑of‑state placement such as family separation)