In Re: P.F.
17-0062
| W. Va. | Jun 19, 2017Background
- DHHR and the biological father of two other children filed an abuse and neglect petition (Mar 2016) alleging petitioner sexually abused two children (B.M., K.M.) and lived in deplorable conditions with petitioner, mother, and three children including P.F.
- Forensic physical exams at the hospital showed no physical evidence of abuse; CAC forensic interviews of B.M. and K.M. contained detailed, disturbing sexual-abuse disclosures attributing acts to petitioner.
- At the preliminary hearing the court found by clear and convincing evidence that B.M. and K.M. suffered sexual abuse by petitioner and that the mother knew of it; petitioner and mother denied the allegations.
- At adjudication the court found abuse and neglect; petitioner’s request for an improvement period was denied.
- At disposition the CAC interviewer’s testimony and the recorded forensic interviews were in evidence; the court found no reasonable likelihood petitioner could correct conditions and terminated his parental rights to P.F.
- Petitioner appealed only arguing the DHHR withheld exculpatory evidence (forensic reports/recordings); the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | DHHR/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHHR knowingly withheld exculpatory evidence (forensic reports/recordings) denying due process | DHHR failed to disclose forensic physical exam reports and CAC reports that tended to make allegations less probable | Record shows the petition and preliminary hearing testimony disclosed lack of physical evidence; audio/video forensic interviews were provided to counsel and admitted without objection | Court held no withholding occurred; petitioner received the information; no due-process violation; appeal denied |
| Whether termination of parental rights was improper given contested evidence | Implicit challenge to outcome (no specific assignment) based on alleged nondisclosure and contesting allegations | Circuit court made findings based on CAC interviews and record; statutory definition of abuse does not require physical injury; petitioner had no improvement period | Court affirmed termination; findings not clearly erroneous and supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996) (standard of review for bench findings in abuse/neglect cases)
- In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) (reiterating standard of review and deference to circuit court findings)
- State v. Asbury, 187 W.Va. 87, 415 S.E.2d 891 (1992) (failure to object at trial generally waives appellate review)
- Stickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (discussed by petitioner regarding disclosure duties; court found disclosure occurred)