Background
The West Virginia Department of Human Services alleged that F.T. abused and neglected his children, L.T. and M.T., through drug use, domestic violence, and failure to provide adequate food, shelter, medical care, education, and supervision. The petition also alleged that he failed to protect a stepdaughter, K.M.-B., from sexual abuse by a houseguest.
At the adjudicatory hearing, F.T. admitted using fentanyl daily while the children lived in the home and acknowledged periods without electricity. The circuit court heard evidence from the children’s Child Advocacy Center interviews and conducted a Rule 8 interview with K.M.-B. It found that F.T. and the mother used drugs to the detriment of their parenting, neglected the children’s basic needs, and knowingly permitted K.M.-B.’s sexual abuse. The circuit court later terminated F.T.’s parental rights to L.T. and M.T.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the circuit court did not clearly err in adjudicating F.T. as an abusing parent. The court declined to reweigh K.M.-B.’s credibility or second-guess the circuit court’s assessment of her testimony, despite F.T.’s claimed inconsistencies between her interviews.
The court also concluded that the evidence of K.M.-B.’s sexual abuse in the children’s shared home supported adjudication regarding L.T. and M.T., because children residing where another child was physically or sexually abused are at risk of abuse. F.T. did not challenge his adjudication based on substance abuse and failure to provide for the children’s needs. His unpreserved Rule 8 due-process argument was not considered, and his challenge to termination failed because the underlying adjudication stood.
Key Takeaways
- Appellate courts will not second-guess a circuit court’s witness-credibility determinations in abuse-and-neglect proceedings.
- Sexual abuse of one child in a shared home may establish risk of abuse to other children living there.
- An unpreserved procedural objection generally will not be considered for the first time on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that abuse-and-neglect adjudications may rest on evidence showing that children faced risk in a home where another child was sexually abused, even if they were not direct victims. It also underscores the importance of raising procedural objections in the circuit court and the deference appellate courts give to trial-level credibility findings.