# In the Interest of Carlita B.

> West Virginia Supreme Court · July 31, 1991 · 185 W. Va. 613

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9575724

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Interest of CARLITA B.
- **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 31, 1991
- **Citations:** 185 W. Va. 613; 408 S.E.2d 365
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Miller
- **Judges:** Workman, Miller
- **Cited by:** 261 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9575724

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “[a]t the outset of an improvement period, the attorneys for the parents should apprise the court if their clients foresee any obstacles to compliance with the plan of improvement, and the court should make any directives as necessary to obliterate these obstacles”
- recognizing that court's determination at the conclusion of the improvement period in an abuse/neglect case involves a decision regarding "whether sufficient improvement has been made in the context of all the circumstances of the case to justify the return of the child"
- stating that matters involving abuse and neglect of children shall take precedence and must be resolved as expeditiously as possible

## Opinion text

MILLER, Chief Justice,
concurring:
My colleague, Justice Workman, has authored a comprehensive and superb opinion in regard to the handling of termination of parental rights cases. Hopefully, it will become the bible not only for our circuit courts, but for all who are involved in this sensitive and difficult field.
I have in the past been critical of this Court’s broadening of the use of Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence in criminal cases, as outlined in Part II of my dissent in State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641 , 398 S.E.2d 123, 143 (1990). However, I join in Syllabus Point 8 of the majority opinion in this case, which states:
“Prior acts of violence, physical abuse, or emotional abuse toward other children are relevant in a termination of parental rights proceeding, are not violative of W.Va.R.Evid. 404(b), and a decision regarding the admissibility thereof shall be within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
In addition to the reasons set out in the majority’s opinion justifying the use of Rule 404(b) evidence, I would point out that termination of parental rights cases are heard only by the judge. Consequently, there is not the same possibility of unfair prejudice as when Rule 404(b) evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts are paraded before the jury in a criminal case. Certainly, the penal consequences are not as severe in a parental rights termination case as in a criminal case. Therefore, the general balancing test under Rule 403 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, which applies to Rule 404(b) evidence, see State v. Hanna, 180 W.Va. 598 , 378 S.E.2d 640 (1989), is less strict.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9575724. Public record. Not legal advice.