Failure to Acknowledge Culpability in Child Sexual Abuse Justifies Termination of Parental Rights

Introduction

This commentary examines the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia’s decision in In re J.B. and M.S., No. 24-48, handed down on May 13, 2025. The case arises from a Child Abuse and Neglect proceeding in Wood County, West Virginia. The Department of Human Services (“DHS”) filed a petition alleging that the father, R.S., sexually abused his then-seven-year-old daughter, J.B., while the daughter’s half-sister, M.S., was present in the home. After multiple adjudicatory hearings, the Circuit Court found the father guilty of sexual abuse and, following a dispositional hearing, terminated his parental rights. The father appealed, claiming the record did not support termination. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Key issues addressed by the Court include:

Whether the circuit court made sufficient factual findings to support the conclusion that the father could not remedy his abusive conduct;
Whether a parent’s refusal to accept responsibility for sexual abuse constitutes “no reasonable likelihood” of correction under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(d);
Whether the termination of parental rights was consistent with statutory requirements and the children’s welfare.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a memorandum decision, affirmed the termination order. It held that:

The Circuit Court properly admitted and relied upon J.B.’s recorded forensic interview and the father’s law-enforcement admissions;
The father’s refusal to testify at the adjudicatory phase was properly treated as affirmative evidence of guilt;
By blaming the child for “willingly” performing the sex act, the father failed to acknowledge his culpability and demonstrated an intractable unwillingness to correct his behavior;
Under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(d)(5) and settled case law, failure to acknowledge the problem is a disqualifying circumstance for an improvement period;
No reasonable likelihood existed that the conditions of sexual abuse could be corrected, and termination was necessary for the children’s welfare;
The Supreme Court found no clear error in the circuit court’s factual findings and no error of law, and therefore affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re Cecil T. (228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011)) – Established that abuse and neglect findings are reviewed for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.
In re Charity H. (215 W. Va. 208, 599 S.E.2d 631 (2004)) – Held that a parent’s failure to acknowledge the existence of a problem renders it untreatable.
In re Timber M. (231 W. Va. 44, 743 S.E.2d 352 (2013)) – Confirmed that intractable refusal to accept responsibility supports a finding of no reasonable likelihood of correction.
In Int. of Carlita B. (185 W. Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991)) – Emphasized the priority of child abuse and neglect cases and the need for expeditious resolution.
In re J.G. (240 W. Va. 194, 809 S.E.2d 453 (2018)) – Reinforced that statutory time limits and procedural rules in abuse and neglect proceedings are mandatory.
In re B.L.-1 (251 W. Va. 92, 909 S.E.2d 127 (2024)) and In re Stephen Tyler R. (213 W. Va. 725, 584 S.E.2d 581 (2003)) – Reminded trial courts to adhere strictly to procedural rules.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds from statutory text and binding precedent:

Statutory Framework: W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(d) lists circumstances that demonstrate “no reasonable likelihood that conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected.” Subsection (5) identifies “failure to acknowledge the existence of the problem” as such a circumstance. The statute clarifies that the list is illustrative, not exhaustive.
Application to Facts: The Circuit Court found that during law-enforcement interviews, the father admitted the sex act but then claimed the child “willingly” participated, effectively shifting blame to a minor. He later refused to testify, which the court correctly interpreted as affirming his refusal to accept responsibility.
Precedent: In In re Timber M., the Court held that blaming a child and failing to recognize one’s own culpability is intractable, untreatable, and suffices to deny an improvement period. In re Charity H. similarly held that acknowledgment is a precondition to treatment.
Best Interests of the Child: Under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6), termination is required when there is no reasonable likelihood of correction and termination serves the child’s welfare.
Standard of Review: The Supreme Court applied clear-error review to factual findings and de novo review to legal conclusions, finding no error.

Impact

This decision reinforces several critical points for future child-welfare cases in West Virginia:

Acknowledgment Requirement: Courts will continue to treat a parent’s failure to acknowledge sexual or other severe abuse as a disqualifying factor for any improvement period.
Expedited Proceedings: The concurring opinion underscores the mandate of Rule 36 and W. Va. Code §§ 49-4-601 to ‑610 that dispositional orders be entered within ten days of the hearing, underlining the high priority of such cases.
Procedural Vigilance: Trial courts are reminded to adhere strictly to statutory timelines and procedural rules to avoid undue delay that may harm a child’s stability and development.
Guidance for Practitioners: Attorneys and guardians ad litem should stress both factual support for “no reasonable likelihood” findings and the parent’s acknowledgment or lack thereof when arguing for or against termination.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Adjudicatory Hearing: The stage at which the court determines whether the allegations of abuse or neglect are supported by evidence.
Dispositional Hearing: The stage at which the court decides what post-adjudication measures (improvement period, foster care, termination) serve the child’s best interests.
Improvement Period: A court-ordered timeframe during which a parent receives services and supervises visits, aiming to correct abusive or neglectful behavior.
“No Reasonable Likelihood”: A legal standard meaning conditions cannot be fixed soon enough to protect the child; statutory subsection (d)(5) labels refusal to admit wrongdoing as one example.
Termination of Parental Rights: The permanent and irrevocable end of all legal parent-child relationships, paving the way for adoption or other permanent placements.
Best Interests of the Child: The paramount statutory principle requiring that decisions prioritize a child’s safety, stability, and emotional well-being.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in In re J.B. and M.S. cements the principle that a parent’s refusal to acknowledge sexual abuse of a minor—even after admitting the act in a law-enforcement interview—constitutes clear evidence of “no reasonable likelihood” of correction. This ruling underscores the non-exhaustive nature of W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(d) and reinforces the requirement that parents must accept responsibility as a precondition to reunification. Trial courts are likewise reminded of their duty to comply promptly with time-sensitive procedures in child-welfare cases. Together, these holdings advance the protection of vulnerable children and clarify the standards that will guide future abuse and neglect proceedings in West Virginia.