In re B.E., E.W., R.S., and O.S.: Unsupervised Contact with Registered Sex Offenders as Child Neglect and the Child-Specific Findings Requirement

Introduction

This memorandum decision from the Supreme Court of West Virginia addresses S.E.’s appeal of the Braxton County circuit court’s August 10, 2023 adjudicatory order in four sibling abuse‐and‐neglect proceedings (23‐JA‐24 through 23‐JA‐27). S.E., the children’s biological mother, challenged the court’s finding that she neglected her daughter E.W. by allowing the six-year-old to travel alone to visit the respondent—her own father, J.D.—a registered child sex offender living in Texas. S.E. also contested adjudications as to her older children B.E., R.S., and O.S. The Supreme Court affirmed the neglect finding for E.W., vacated it as to the other three children due to lack of supporting evidence, and underscored the requirement for child-specific factual findings.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s adjudication of S.E. as a neglecting parent only with respect to E.W., finding that permitting extended unsupervised visits with her registered sex-offender grandfather posed a clear risk of harm.
The Court vacated the adjudication as to B.E., R.S., and O.S., because there was no clear-and-convincing evidence that S.E. abused or neglected those three children, nor specific findings explaining how each child’s welfare was threatened.
In doing so, the Court reaffirmed that abuse/neglect must be proven by clear and convincing evidence and that a circuit court must make individualized findings for each child named in the petition.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011): Standard of review—findings of fact not clearly erroneous; conclusions of law de novo.
In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996): Clarified the “firm conviction” test for clear error and the duty to defer to credibility findings.
In re B.V., 248 W. Va. 29, 886 S.E.2d 364 (2023): Held that a circuit court must enter specific factual findings for each child to support subject-matter jurisdiction in abuse/neglect cases.
Statutory authorities:
- W. Va. Code §49-4-601(i): Burden of proof (clear and convincing) and requirements for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- W. Va. Code §49-4-602(d)(2)(F): Circumstances permitting suspension of reasonable-efforts requirement based on a parent’s status as a registered sex offender.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court applied the well-established standard that circuit court factfindings in an abuse/neglect proceeding will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. It reviewed legal conclusions de novo. Under W. Va. Code §49-4-601(i), neglect must be established by clear and convincing evidence of conditions existing at the time the petition was filed.

As to E.W., the record showed that:

J.D. had been charged under Texas law with indecency with a child by contact; he received deferred adjudication, served ten years’ probation, and is required to register as a sex offender for life.
S.E. was twice warned—once in family court, and once during a DHS investigation—not to permit the children to visit J.D.
Despite those warnings, S.E. sent E.W. on extended, unsupervised six-week visits on at least three occasions, and admitted she could not guarantee J.D. never was alone with the child.

The circuit court found that these facts—unsupervised extended contact with a known sex offender—created a sufficient risk of harm to constitute neglect. The Supreme Court concluded there was no clear error in that determination.

Conversely, the evidence relating to B.E., R.S., and O.S. did not demonstrate any abuse or neglect by S.E., and the circuit court had expressly found insufficient proof as to those children. Moreover, the circuit court made no individualized findings regarding how S.E.’s conduct threatened each of those children. Under In re B.V., such boilerplate findings do not suffice to confer jurisdiction.

Impact

This decision carries two principal implications for West Virginia child-welfare law:

Registered-Offender Exposure as Neglect: A parent who permits a child to remain in the unsupervised care of a registered child sex offender, especially after clear warnings, faces a high risk of neglect adjudication. Courts will treat such exposure as presenting an imminent danger to the child’s physical and mental well-being.
Child-Specific Findings Requirement: Circuit courts must enter separate, detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law for each child named in an abuse/neglect petition. Generalized findings applied to multiple children fail to satisfy statutory jurisdictional prerequisites.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Adjudicatory Hearing: The trial-like proceeding where the court decides whether abuse or neglect has occurred.
Clear and Convincing Evidence: A standard of proof requiring a firm belief or conviction in the truth of the allegations—but less exacting than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Deferred Adjudication: A disposition in some jurisdictions where a conviction is withheld pending satisfactory completion of probation; not an outright acquittal.
Registered Sex Offender: A person required by law to maintain registration following certain sex-related convictions; registration alone does not automatically prove present danger, but extended unsupervised access can.

Conclusion

In re B.E., E.W., R.S., and O.S. underscores that permitting extended unsupervised contact between a child and a registered sex offender may, under clear-and-convincing evidence, amount to child neglect. It simultaneously reinforces the imperative that circuit courts craft individualized findings for each child to establish abuse or neglect jurisdiction. Future abuse/neglect proceedings in West Virginia will look to this decision for guidance on both the substantive risk posed by registered offenders and the procedural necessity of child-specific adjudicatory findings.