Child Disclosures and Behavioral Corroboration Can Meet the Clear-and-Convincing Standard Without Physical Evidence; Rule 19(b) Permits Reopened Adjudications on Amended Allegations

Introduction

In re D.R., No. 24-326 (W. Va. Sept. 10, 2025), is a memorandum decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirming the termination of a father’s parental rights following a re-opened adjudication on amended allegations of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. The case is significant on two fronts:

Substantively, it confirms that consistent child disclosures of abuse—corroborated by behavioral indicators, caregiver testimony, and recorded Child Advocacy Center (CAC) interviews—can satisfy the “clear and convincing” standard in abuse and neglect adjudications even absent physical evidence or criminal prosecution.
Procedurally, it reaffirms that when new abuse allegations emerge after a final adjudication, Rule 19(b) of the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings authorizes the State to amend the petition and requires the court to re-open the adjudicatory hearing to adjudicate those allegations before using them to support disposition, including termination.

The petitioner, C.R. (the father), challenged the sufficiency of the evidence underpinning his adjudication for abusing his child, D.R. The West Virginia Department of Human Services (DHS) defended the adjudication and the subsequent termination order. The child’s guardian ad litem supported affirmance.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court affirmed the circuit court’s May 8, 2024 order terminating the father’s parental rights. It held that:

DHS proved by clear and convincing evidence that the father physically, emotionally, and sexually abused D.R., principally through consistent disclosures by the child, corroborating testimony from caregivers and DHS, behavioral manifestations consistent with abuse, and CAC interviews.
The absence of physical or medical evidence and the lack of a criminal prosecution did not preclude a finding by clear and convincing evidence in this civil child abuse proceeding.
Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or revisit credibility determinations made by the trial court; deference to the circuit court’s credibility assessments was decisive.
On remand, DHS properly amended the petition and the circuit court properly re-opened the adjudicatory hearing under Rule 19(b) to adjudicate the newly pleaded allegations—an essential procedural step previously mandated by the Court in this same matter.
The father’s briefing was noncompliant with Rule 10(c)(7) due to a failure to cite legal authorities, but the Court nevertheless addressed the merits.

Case Background

DHS filed an original abuse and neglect petition in May 2021 citing parental substance abuse and other issues. The father stipulated to neglect in July 2021. At a March 2022 dispositional hearing, extensive testimony surfaced concerning physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of D.R. and another child, D.H., including:

Disclosures that the father hit the children, forced them to hold an electric fence until they urinated, and compelled them to destroy their belongings.
D.R.’s statements that the father touched his penis, and behavioral signs including soiling, fear during medical exams involving removal of clothing, and fear of the dark.

The circuit court terminated parental rights, but the Supreme Court vacated in part in 2023 because the termination rested on unadjudicated allegations and ordered that any reliance on those allegations must first be preceded by amendment and adjudication. On remand, DHS amended the petition (July 2023), the court re-opened adjudication (February 2024), admitted the children’s CAC interviews and took judicial notice of prior dispositional testimony, and heard an expert on trauma and the father’s clinical evaluation. The circuit court adjudicated abuse under the amended petition and later terminated parental rights, which the father appealed.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

West Virginia Code § 49-4-601(i): Requires the State to prove abuse or neglect by clear and convincing evidence. The Court reiterated this statutory burden as the governing standard at adjudication.
In re B.L.-1, 251 W. Va. 92, 909 S.E.2d 127 (2024) and In re S.C., 168 W. Va. 366, 284 S.E.2d 867 (1981): Reaffirm the requirement that DHS prove the “conditions existing at the time of the filing of the petition” by clear and convincing evidence. In the posture of an amended petition, this aligns with Rule 19(b)’s mechanism to plead and adjudicate new allegations.
In re F.S., 233 W. Va. 538, 759 S.E.2d 769 (2014) (quoting Brown v. Gobble, 196 W. Va. 559, 474 S.E.2d 489 (1996)): Defines “clear and convincing” as evidence producing in the factfinder a firm belief or conviction in the truth of the allegations.
In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011) and In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996): Establish the appellate standard of review—clear error for factual findings and de novo for legal conclusions, with reversal only upon a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
In re D.S., -- W. Va. --, 914 S.E.2d 701 (2025): Emphasizes that appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or make credibility determinations.
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W. Va. 381, 497 S.E.2d 531 (1997); State ex rel. Diva P. v. Kaufman, 200 W. Va. 555, 490 S.E.2d 642 (1997), as quoted in In re I.J., No. 23-353, 2024 WL 4789972 (W. Va. Nov. 14, 2024): Stress the “unreviewable intangibles” of witness credibility and the deference owed to trial courts.
Rule 19(b), Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings: When new allegations arise after the final adjudicatory hearing, the State should file an amended petition and the court must re-open adjudication to hear those allegations.
Rule 10(c)(7) and Rule 10(j), West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure; December 10, 2012 Administrative Order: Require briefs to cite supporting authorities, with potential sanctions for noncompliance. The Court notes the father’s noncompliance but proceeds to the merits.

Legal Reasoning

The father’s core appellate claim was that the evidence did not meet the clear-and-convincing threshold because there was no physical evidence and no criminal charges. The Court rejected this framing and found the record amply supported the circuit court’s adjudication of abuse:

Multiple consistent disclosures by the children to different adults (foster mother, DHS worker, foster care agency worker), recorded in CAC interviews, described specific acts of physical and emotional abuse, and sexually inappropriate touching of D.R. by the father.
Behavioral corroboration—such as D.R.’s fear responses during medical examinations, fear of the dark, episodes of soiling without physical etiology, and age-inappropriate sexualized behavior—supported the disclosures and was credited by the circuit court.
The circuit court found the children’s disclosures detailed and consistent, noted D.H.’s shut-down demeanor when questioned about abuse (consistent with embarrassment and trauma), and found corroboration across witnesses.
Expert testimony (Delaina Szafraniec) explained the father’s generational trauma, minimization, and impaired ability to recognize unsafe situations (including reliance on caregivers in a family environment with serious intra-familial sexual misconduct). The circuit court found the father’s testimony demonstrated a troubling lack of insight and risk recognition.
The father’s reliance on a DHS worker’s momentary testimony suggesting she might not sign the amended petition again was undercut by her clarifications: she had not recently reviewed the file, had not watched the CAC videos, and her discomfort reflected her lack of first-hand investigation and preparedness, not a repudiation of the allegations’ truth. The circuit court credited the amended petition as accurate when filed and found her hesitancy had “no negative impact” on the overall credibility of the abuse evidence.
The Court emphasized its limited role on appeal: credibility determinations belong to the circuit court, and appellate courts will not substitute their judgment or reweigh the evidence where the trial court’s account is plausible in light of the entire record.

On the father’s procedural argument that DHS should not have been permitted to amend the petition, the Court pointed to its prior directive in this same matter and Rule 19(b). Because the circuit court re-opened adjudication and adjudicated the amended allegations on a clear-and-convincing record, no procedural error occurred.

The Court also rejected the father’s contention that any DHS offer of visitation would prove the sexual abuse did not occur or would conflict with agency policy. The claim lacked record support, and, regardless, alleged internal policy deviations would not bear on the truth of the allegations or the sufficiency of the proof.

Impact and Significance

This decision has several practical and doctrinal implications for child abuse and neglect litigation in West Virginia:

Proof without physical evidence: The Court expressly recognizes that clear and convincing proof of abuse can rest on the quality, consistency, and corroboration of child disclosures, supported by behavioral evidence and CAC interviews. This aligns with the reality that many child abuse cases—especially sexual abuse—lack physical or medical evidence and do not culminate in criminal charges.
Use of CAC interviews and behavioral corroboration: Practitioners should expect CAC interviews to play a central evidentiary role at adjudication. Observed behavioral changes and trauma-consistent responses can meaningfully corroborate disclosures.
Deference to trial courts on credibility: Appeals that essentially seek reweighing of credibility will founder under the deferential “clear error” standard. Building a robust evidentiary record and making clear credibility findings at the circuit court level remain crucial.
Rule 19(b) as the procedural pathway: Where new allegations arise post-adjudication (including revelations at disposition), DHS must amend the petition and the court must re-open adjudication. Termination cannot rest on unadjudicated allegations. This case illustrates the clean procedural cure and confirms that courts may consider the existing record (including prior testimony in the same case) in the re-opened adjudication.
Expert testimony on parental insight and risk: Evidence that a parent minimizes abuse, lacks insight into risk, or cannot recognize unsafe environments can bolster adjudicatory findings by contextualizing disclosures and explaining risk to the child.
Appellate practice standards: The Court’s admonition about Rule 10(c)(7) underscores the need for authority-based argument. Noncompliant briefs risk sanctions and may be summarily rejected in future cases.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Clear and convincing evidence: A mid-level burden of proof requiring evidence that creates a firm belief or conviction in the factfinder’s mind. It is more demanding than “preponderance of the evidence” but less than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Adjudication vs. disposition: Adjudication determines whether abuse/neglect occurred and whether the child is an abused/neglected child. Disposition follows adjudication and decides remedies (e.g., improvement periods, placement, termination). A court cannot base disposition on unadjudicated allegations.
Rule 19(b) amended petitions: If new allegations surface after adjudication, they belong in an amended petition, and the court must re-open adjudication to hear and decide them under the clear-and-convincing standard before using them at disposition.
CAC interviews: Forensic interviews of children by trained professionals in a child-friendly setting. While evidentiary rulings depend on procedural rules and the case record, CAC interviews often provide critical, reliable statements in abuse adjudications.
Behavioral corroboration: Nonverbal or behavioral signs consistent with abuse (e.g., regression, sexualized behaviors, somatic responses, fear triggers) may corroborate disclosures, especially when physical evidence is absent.
Appellate deference on credibility: Trial judges observe witness demeanor and are best positioned to judge credibility; appellate courts rarely disturb those determinations unless clearly erroneous.
Civil vs. criminal proceedings: Abuse/neglect adjudications are civil and use the clear-and-convincing standard. The absence of criminal charges or conviction does not control the civil outcome.

Practice Pointers

For DHS and guardians: When new abuse evidence emerges after adjudication, promptly move to amend under Rule 19(b) and ask to re-open adjudication. Present CAC interviews, corroborating witness testimony, and behavioral evidence cohesively.
For parents’ counsel: Appellate arguments must cite and apply governing authorities. On the merits, focus on legal errors, evidentiary rulings, or the absence of clear and convincing proof; attempts to reweigh evidence or re-argue credibility are unlikely to succeed.
For circuit courts: Make explicit credibility findings and tie them to specific evidence. Explain how disclosures, behaviors, and expert testimony meet the clear-and-convincing standard. If relying on prior testimony within the same case, clearly identify that record material.

Conclusion

In re D.R. reinforces two key principles in West Virginia child abuse law. First, a well-developed record of consistent child disclosures, corroborated by caregiver testimony, behavioral evidence, and CAC interviews, can meet the clear-and-convincing burden—even where physical evidence is lacking and no criminal prosecution has occurred. Second, procedural integrity matters: allegations not pleaded and adjudicated cannot support disposition, but Rule 19(b) offers a precise route—amend and re-open adjudication—to ensure that the court’s dispositional decisions rest on adjudicated grounds.

The Court’s strong deference to the circuit court’s credibility findings, its emphasis on the distinct evidentiary contours of civil child abuse proceedings, and its reaffirmation of Rule 19(b)’s remedial framework together provide clear guidance for practitioners. The decision underscores that the quality, consistency, and corroboration of child disclosures are central to adjudication and that appellate review will not revisit credibility where the trial court’s account is plausible and supported by the record.