Violation 5: Concealment of Mother’s Sexual Exploitation Admission (Medication Application/Self-Touch)

Section 1: Fact (The Violation)Crucially, on September 8 (18 months after supposed May 1 investigation of the mother instructing the child to touch herself that the cps worker declared as unsubstantiated.), the Mother testified that she administered medicine to the child’s vagina twice daily from April 8 to April 15, and this application was the basis for the sexual abuse allegation against the Mother herself (Sexual Exploitation/Corrupting). This delayed admission was the first reveal of this central fact to the court.

Section 2: Correct Action This admission, and the fact of its 18-month concealment, should have been investigated immediately as Sexual Exploitation and Psychological Abuse (Corrupting).

Section 3: Laws, Codes, Ethics, Rights Violated

  1. W. Va. Code § 49-1-201 (Abused Child — Sexual Exploitation): The definition of “Sexual Exploitation” includes: “A parent, guardian, or custodian knowingly maintains or makes available a child for the purpose of engaging the child in commercial sexual activity…” and “persuades, induces, entices or coerces a child to display his or her sex organs…” (dv benchbook 2023.pdf, Ch 7, § 49-1-201). The instruction to apply medicine to the child’s genitals falls directly under the definition of sexual exploitation/procurement, independent of the initial false allegations against the Father.
  2. APSAC Guidelines (Exploiting/Corrupting): This admission directly meets the criteria for “Exploiting/Corrupting” behavior, involving caregiver acts that encourage inappropriate behavior or subject the child to intrusiveness, as it involves initiating inappropriate conduct regarding the child’s genitals (definitions of psychological abuse.pdf).
  3. Systemic Failure / Gross Negligence (DHS): The fact that this material truth—which independently confirms sexual exploitation by the Mother—was suppressed for 18 months provides the clearest evidence of gross negligence and systemic bias. DHS ignored multiple initial referrals against the Mother (which should have revealed this immediately) and permitted her to deliberately conceal a key fact that contradicted her entire narrative, thus allowing her to concoct an explanation without fear of due diligence or verification.

Section 4: Supporting Evidence

  1. Evidence Package F
  2. Transcript of Mother’s Testimony (September 8): Admission of the instruction and application of medicine to the child’s genitals.
  3. Contradictory Statements: This fact directly contradicts the Mother’s earlier timeline and her repeated claims to police and CPS that she “knew nothing” about the sexual allegation prior to April 26.

Section 5: Consequences
Party Affected Immediate Consequences Long-Term Harm & Color of Law Implication
To the Child Direct sexualization and boundary violation by the Mother; confusion regarding sexual norms; extreme psychological distress caused by the Mother’s use of her body/health as an abusive tool. Harm resulting from state action: The child’s continued exposure to the Mother’s exploitative behavior was enabled by DHS’s investigative failure, constituting harm under color of law.
To the Father Falsely accused and restricted from the child while the custodial parent was actively committing sexualizing/exploitative behaviors. Civil Rights Violation: DHS’s failure to investigate the Mother’s self-admitted sexual exploitation, while simultaneously prosecuting the Father based on her false and contradictory narrative, constitutes a grave, biased denial of due process.
To the State/Public The State sanctioned sexual grooming behaviors by failing to act upon information that should have terminated the Mother’s access immediately. Gross malpractice by DHS, demonstrating an active effort to shield the accuser and punish the accused, compromising the judicial record.

Notify the mother in advance of her testimony that there would be no further proceedings allowing her to provide false testimony without fear of rebuttal of a false statements you. Allowed her to provide testimony that contradicts her statements to Maryland and in other proceedings where she denied any contact
Also shows that the allegations of her instructing the child touch herself were indeed true