In Re: R.M., 16-0917

DHHR filed a child abuse and neglect petition alleging Jeffrey and Tammie M. exposed their 12-year-old son R.M. to domestic violence, severe physical abuse by Jeffrey toward Tammie in R.M.’s presence, and Tammie’s habitual drug/alcohol abuse in R.M.’s presence; multiple 911 calls to the home were alleged.
An adjudicatory hearing was scheduled; before it began the parents, through counsel, agreed to voluntarily relinquish custodial rights and consent to permanent guardianship of R.M. by his paternal grandparents.
The circuit court questioned the parents and grandparents, accepted the voluntary relinquishment and guardianship, and made two express findings: (1) the parents’ voluntary relinquishment sufficed as a basis for an abuse-and-neglect adjudication, and (2) visitation must occur at the guardians’ home and the parents may not visit together.
Neither parent objected at the hearing to the adjudication basis or the visitation restrictions; counsel for one parent acknowledged parents could not participate in visitation together.
Parents appealed, arguing the court should have accepted the disposition without adjudicating abuse/neglect and that the visitation restrictions were improper.

Issue	Parent(s) Argument	DHHR / Court Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by adjudicating abuse/neglect after accepting voluntary relinquishment of custodial rights	Parents: court should accept voluntary dispositional plan without adjudicating abuse/neglect	Court/DHHR: court must decide abuse/neglect; voluntary relinquishment can serve as basis for adjudication	Court affirmed: adjudication required and permissible based on relinquishment
Whether voluntary relinquishment of custodial (vs. parental) rights precludes using it as basis for adjudication	Parents: distinction means relinquishment should not trigger adjudication	DHHR/Court: rationale from Marley M. applies; allowing relinquishment to avoid adjudication is prohibited	Court held: custodial relinquishment may be used as basis for adjudication
Whether parents had to present evidence to avoid adjudication after offering relinquishment	Parents: chose not to present evidence; argue error	DHHR/Court: parents had opportunity to refute allegations; silence may be considered affirmative evidence	Court held: parents’ choice not to refute supports adjudication
Whether visitation restrictions (only at guardians’ home; parents not together) were improper	Parents: claimed prior agreement allowed joint visitation and challenge restrictions	DHHR/Court: restrictions consistent with child’s best interests and Rule 15 safety/setting requirements; record shows parents did not object	Court held: visitation restrictions valid and affirmed

State v. T.C., 172 W.Va. 47, 303 S.E.2d 685 (W.Va. 1983) (voluntary dispositional plans allowed but court must still adjudicate abuse/neglect)
In re Marley M., 231 W.Va. 534, 745 S.E.2d 572 (W.Va. 2013) (accepted voluntary relinquishment may be used as basis for abuse/neglect adjudication)
In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W.Va. 1996) (standard of review for bench-tried abuse/neglect proceedings)
In re Daniel D., 211 W.Va. 79, 562 S.E.2d 147 (W.Va. 2002) (discussing options available to accused parent when offering relinquishment)
W.Va. Dep’t. of Health & Human Res. v. Doris S., 197 W.Va. 489, 475 S.E.2d 865 (W.Va. 1996) (silence in face of probative evidence may be considered affirmative evidence of culpability)
In re T.W., 230 W.Va. 172, 737 S.E.2d 69 (W.Va. 2012) (importance of adjudication to protect best interests and potential future petitions)