Failure to Acknowledge Sexual Abuse as Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights

Introduction

In the matter of In re M.M., H.M., S.M., K.M., and G.M., the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia examined whether a father's persistent denial of having sexually abused one of his children justified the circuit court’s decision to terminate his parental rights to all five minor children. The Department of Human Services (DHS) filed petitions in early 2023 alleging that Father C.M. had inappropriately touched his daughter K.M. on a trip to Florida between 2018 and 2020. After evidentiary hearings, the Clay County Circuit Court adjudicated the father as an abusing parent, found no reasonable prospect of correcting the conditions of abuse, and terminated his parental rights. Father C.M. appealed, challenging both the sufficiency of the evidence and the dispositional finding that he would not meaningfully cooperate with a case plan without acknowledging the abuse.

Key issues:

Did the DHS prove sexual abuse by clear and convincing evidence?
Was the circuit court correct to find no reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation given the father’s refusal to acknowledge the abuse?
What is the impact of a parent’s denial of proven abuse on reunification prospects?

Parties:

Petitioner Father: C.M., represented by counsel Clinton W. Smith
Respondent Agency: West Virginia Department of Human Services (DHS), by the Attorney General’s office
Guardian ad litem for the children: Julia R. Callaghan

Summary of the Judgment

On April 16, 2024, after separate adjudicatory and dispositional hearings, the Clay County Circuit Court:

Adjudicated Father C.M. as an abusing parent with respect to all five children, based upon sexual abuse of his daughter K.M. and the risk posed to the others under In re Christina L., 194 W. Va. 446 (1995).
Found that the DHS had proved the sexual abuse allegations by clear and convincing evidence, including an unobjected-to recorded interview of K.M. and expert testimony regarding her credibility and behavioral consistency with a victim of abuse.
Determined there was “no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse could be substantially corrected in the near future,” because Father C.M. continued to deny any wrongdoing and refused to acknowledge the established facts.
Terminated Father C.M.’s parental rights to all five children, concluding that termination served the children’s best interests and that the mother would provide a suitable permanency plan.

The Supreme Court of Appeals, applying a “clear error” standard to factual findings and “de novo” review to legal conclusions, affirmed the circuit court’s rulings in a published memorandum decision on May 6, 2025.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re S.C. (1981): Established that abuse and neglect must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, a standard lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt” but higher than a mere scintilla. Guided the Court’s evaluation of K.M.’s recorded statements.
In re K.P. (2015): Held that a child’s uncorroborated statements in a recorded forensic interview can suffice to support a finding of sexual abuse under the abuse and neglect statutes.
State v. Beck (1981): Recognized the admissibility of a child’s hearsay statements in child sexual abuse prosecutions if they meet reliability criteria; shaping the Court’s comfort with the CAC recording in this civil context.
In re Christina L. (1995): Clarified that non‐victim children residing in the household may be adjudicated as abused if one child was sexually abused and the others were at risk during the same period.
In re Timber M. (2013) and In re Charity H. (2004): Emphasized that a parent’s failure to acknowledge abuse renders the problem “untreatable” and justifies termination under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(d).

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis turned on two central pillars: sufficiency of proof at the adjudicatory stage and the statutory criteria for termination at the dispositional stage.

1. Adjudication—Clear and Convincing Evidence: Under W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(i), the DHS was required to prove abuse by clear and convincing evidence. The circuit court credited K.M.’s CAC interview—played without objection—and the forensic interviewer’s testimony that the child’s disclosures were consistent with genuine abuse. The father’s inconsistent denials and his own admission about sleeping in the truck did not outweigh the uncontroverted forensic evidence. The Supreme Court of Appeals declined to disturb the credibility determinations, underscoring that factual findings on credibility are reviewed only for clear error.

2. Termination—No Reasonable Likelihood of Correction: Under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(d), the court may terminate parental rights if “no reasonable likelihood that conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected.” The father argued that the court needed to find he willfully refused to cooperate with a case plan per § 49-4-604(d)(2). The Court rejected this overly narrow reading, noting that the statutory list of six circumstances is “not exclusive.” The father’s absolute refusal to acknowledge the abuse met the broader statutory standard: without acknowledgement, treatment and rehabilitation are impossible. This reasoning tracks prior rulings that denial makes the problem untreatable.

Impact

This decision reinforces several important principles in West Virginia child welfare law:

Uncorroborated but credible statements by a child in a professionally conducted recorded interview can independently satisfy the clear and convincing evidentiary burden for sexual abuse adjudications.
A parent’s denial of adjudicated abuse constitutes an independent ground for finding no reasonable likelihood of remediation, even if the parent otherwise cooperates with services.
Non‐victim siblings living in the same home may be adjudicated as abused children under the “risk of abuse” doctrine from In re Christina L.

Going forward, practitioners and lower courts will apply this precedent to cases where a parent contests findings of sexual abuse but cannot overcome recorded child statements and expert testimony. The ruling underscores the importance of early, reliable forensic interviews and highlights the inherent link between parental acknowledgment of abuse and the feasibility of reunification efforts.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Clear and Convincing Evidence: A standard of proof requiring that the evidence be highly and substantially more probable to be true than not. It sits between “preponderance of the evidence” and “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Adjudication vs. Disposition: In West Virginia abuse and neglect proceedings, an adjudicatory hearing determines whether the child is abused or neglected; a dispositional hearing decides what services, supervision, or termination of rights will follow.
No Reasonable Likelihood of Correction: A statutory threshold for termination: the court finds that the parent’s problems cannot be remedied in the foreseeable future, based on statutory factors or other compelling circumstances (such as denial of abuse).

Conclusion

In re M.M., H.M., S.M., K.M., and G.M. solidifies West Virginia law on the relationship between parental acknowledgment of child sexual abuse and the viability of reunification. It affirms that a professionally conducted recorded interview of a child, corroborated by expert testimony, can meet the clear and convincing standard. Critically, the ruling confirms that a parent’s ongoing denial of adjudicated abuse is sufficient to establish that there is no reasonable likelihood that the abuse conditions can be corrected, warranting termination of parental rights in the children’s best interests. This precedent will guide practitioners, service providers, and courts in future child welfare cases involving allegations of sexual abuse.