Requirement of Comprehensive Credibility Findings in Child Abuse and Neglect Adjudications

Introduction

In In re J.E., the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed a circuit‐court order dismissing a Department of Human Services (DHS) abuse and neglect petition. Petitioner Q.E. (the child’s father) and the DHS had alleged that the mother’s live‐in boyfriend sexually abused the couple’s five‐year-old son, J.E., and that the mother failed to protect him. The Berkeley County Family Court had previously awarded temporary sole custody to the father, and a Child Advocacy Center (CAC) forensic interview and therapist sessions documented multiple disclosures by the child. At the adjudicatory hearing, conflicting testimony was given by the mother, the boyfriend, the father, the child’s therapist and a DHS worker. The circuit court ultimately found that clear and convincing proof of sexual abuse was lacking and dismissed the petition. The father and DHS appealed, contending that the court ignored or misconstrued key evidence and made credibility findings inconsistent with the record.

Summary of the Judgment

On May 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of Appeals vacated the circuit court’s dismissal order and remanded for further proceedings. The appellate court held that:

The circuit court failed to make explicit credibility determinations for each witness, especially regarding the child’s disclosures to his therapist (Dr. Gail Shade) and during the CAC interview.
Key findings—such as the court’s discounting of multiple, consistent out-cry statements by J.E.—were unsupported by the evidence, and in some instances directly contradicted the testimony.
The court misquoted or omitted critical portions of expert testimony (e.g., the therapist’s opinion that “something sexually inappropriate was happening”).
Under the “clearly erroneous” standard, the appellate court was left with a definite and firm conviction that the circuit court’s factual findings were mistaken.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Appeals vacated and remanded for entry of an adjudicatory order consistent with its opinion and for post-adjudicatory disposition.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996): Clear error standard in abuse/neglect findings.
In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011): Circuit court’s findings are reversed only if clearly erroneous.
In re S.C., 168 W. Va. 366, 284 S.E.2d 867 (1981): DHS must prove abuse or neglect by clear and convincing evidence.
In re K.P., 235 W. Va. 221, 772 S.E.2d 914 (2015): Uncorroborated testimony of a child may suffice if deemed credible.

Legal Reasoning

The high court focused on two interrelated principles:

Evidence and Credibility: In child‐sexual‐abuse cases, testimony often pits an adult’s denial against a child’s out-cry. The factfinder must explicitly assess credibility, weighing out-of-court statements, expert opinion, and forensic interviews.
“Clearly Erroneous” Standard: Under W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(i) and Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse & Neglect, circuit courts must issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law. On appeal, those findings stand unless the record leaves a “definite and firm conviction” of mistake.

Here, the circuit court’s factual narrative conflicted with uncontroverted portions of the record—most notably Dr. Shade’s testimony that “something sexually inappropriate was happening”—yet the court discounted it. The Supreme Court of Appeals found that omission and selective quoting “unsupportable” and remanded for a proper weighing of all testimony.

Impact

This decision provides clear guidance to lower courts in abuse and neglect proceedings:

Explicitly address the credibility of each witness, especially where child disclosures are central.
Ensure forensic interviews are viewed in context and given appropriate evidentiary weight.
Document how expert opinions (e.g., therapist diagnoses) influence the finding of abuse or neglect.
Adhere strictly to the “clear and convincing” proof requirement and the “clearly erroneous” appellate standard.

It underscores that appellate courts will overturn adjudications that rest on fact-finding omissions or inconsistencies, particularly in sensitive matters of alleged child sexual abuse.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Clear and Convincing Evidence”: More than a mere “scintilla” of proof; enough to produce a firm belief in the truth of the allegations, though not as high as “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
“Clearly Erroneous” Standard: Appellate courts defer to trial‐court factfindings unless the entire record leaves a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.
Forensic Interview: A structured, recorded conversation of a child at a Child Advocacy Center, designed to minimize trauma and ensure reliable fact-getting.
Multidisciplinary Team (MDT): A coordinated group—law enforcement, social services, medical and mental-health professionals—that reviews and monitors child abuse/neglect investigations.

Conclusion

In re J.E. establishes that where child abuse and neglect petitions hinge on a young victim’s out-cry, circuit courts must:

Make explicit credibility determinations for all witnesses,
Accurately quote and weigh expert testimony, and
Ensure factual findings align with uncontradicted evidence.

By vacating and remanding the circuit court’s order, the Supreme Court of Appeals reinforces that procedural rigor in factfinding is indispensable to protect children while safeguarding due process rights of parents and caregivers.