In the Interest of S. C.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting claim that failure to introduce CPS reports and call certain witnesses improperly shifted burden of proof where DHHR called children and different caseworker as live witnesses
• “A litigant may not silently acquiesce to error . . . and then raise that error as a reason for reversal on appeal.”
• “ ‘An order to which no objection was made and which was actually approved by counsel, will not be reviewed on appeal.’ Syl. pt. 1, Loar v. Massey, [164 W.Va. 155], 261 S.E.2d 83 (1979).”
• “W.Va.Code, [49-4-601(i) (2019], requires the [DHS], in a child abuse or neglect case, to prove “conditions existing at the time of the filing of the petition . . . by clear and convincing proof.”
• “[T]he burden of proof in a child neglect or abuse case does not shift from the [DHS] to the parent, guardian[,] or custodian of the child. It remains upon the [DHS] throughout the proceedings.”
• “the burden of proof in a child neglect or abuse case does not shift from the [DHHR] to the parent, guardian, or custodian of the child. It remains upon the [DHHR] throughout the proceedings.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).