In re C.N., D.N., H.N-1, I.P. & H.N-2: Mandating Specific Factual Findings and Proper Dispositional Standards in Child Abuse & Neglect Proceedings

Introduction

In this appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviews the Braxton County Circuit Court’s adjudicatory and dispositional orders terminating Father L.N.’s parental rights to five children—C.N., D.N., H.N-1, I.P. and H.N-2. The Department of Human Services (“DHS”) had alleged substance abuse, domestic violence, and unfit housing. Two of the children (D.N. and H.N-1) were already in legal guardianship with their paternal grandmother. L.N. completed portions of counseling and treatment, but a positive drug screen and statutory time limits figured prominently in the lower court’s decision to terminate.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court vacated the adjudicatory order as to D.N. and H.N-1 because the circuit court failed to make specific findings explaining how those children’s health or welfare were harmed or threatened given their guardianship. It also vacated the dispositional order terminating L.N.’s rights to all five children, concluding that the court erred by relying solely on the statutory 15-of-22-month time limit rather than making the required two-step finding under W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(c)(6):

1. There is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected in the near future.
2. Termination is necessary for the welfare of the child(ren).

The Supreme Court remanded for:

• A new adjudicatory inquiry into D.N. and H.N-1 with specific factual findings.
• A new dispositional hearing for all children with clear findings on the “reasonable likelihood” standard and best-interest analysis.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• In re B.V., 248 W. Va. 29 (2023): Courts must make specific factual findings when children are in third-party guardianship before adjudicating them as abused or neglected.
• In re C.L., 249 W. Va. 95 (2023): Dispositional orders under § 49-4-604(c)(6) require two distinct findings—no reasonable likelihood of correction and necessity for the child’s welfare—before termination.
• In re Edward B., 210 W. Va. 621 (2001): Termination orders must include factual support for the “no reasonable likelihood” conclusion or they are inadequate.
• In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223 (1996): Standard of review for circuit court findings in abuse and neglect cases—factual findings not set aside unless clearly erroneous.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s analysis identifies two critical errors:

1. Adjudication Error: For D.N. and H.N-1, the lower court never explained on the record how L.N.’s conduct—amid an existing guardianship—harmed or threatened them. Legal guardianship attenuates the parent’s day-to-day care, so specific findings are essential to show that statutory definitions of “abuse” or “neglect” were met at filing.
2. Dispositional Error: The circuit court terminated L.N.’s rights based solely on the statutory time-in-foster-care limit (15 of 22 months), without making the § 49-4-604(c)(6) findings. It did not determine whether there was no reasonable likelihood that L.N. could remedy the neglect or abuse in the near future, nor did it explicitly analyze the children’s best interests beyond timeline concerns.

Impact

This decision reinforces rigorous procedural safeguards in West Virginia’s child abuse and neglect system:

• Circuit courts must tie adjudicatory findings to the precise circumstances of each child, especially in kinship care or guardianship scenarios.
• Dispositional orders under § 49-4-604(c)(6) require a structured two-step approach: assess the parent’s capacity to correct conditions, then analyze the child’s welfare.
• Statutory time limits cannot override substantive findings. Courts may not terminate parental rights solely because a child has been in care beyond 15 of the last 22 months without satisfying the clear-and-convincing evidence standard for correction and welfare.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Adjudication vs. Disposition: Adjudication determines whether a child is abused or neglected. Disposition decides the parent-child relationship’s future (e.g., improvement period, reunification, termination).
• Clear and Convincing Evidence: A standard requiring proof that the facts are highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue. Used in neglect/abuse termination decisions.
• Improvement Period: A court-ordered timeframe for parents to remedy the conditions leading to abuse or neglect, often through counseling or treatment.
• “Reasonable Likelihood” Test: Under § 49-4-604(c)(6), before terminating rights, the court must find that the parent cannot substantially correct the conditions in the near future.
• Guardianship Context: When a child is in legal guardianship, the court must be explicit about how the parent’s conduct nevertheless endangers the child’s welfare.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s memorandum decision in In re C.N., D.N., H.N-1, I.P. & H.N-2 underscores two fundamental precepts:

1. Adjudicatory orders must include child-specific factual findings—especially when kinship or guardianship placements exist—to justify abuse or neglect determinations.
2. Dispositional orders terminating parental rights under § 49-4-604(c)(6) must first establish no reasonable likelihood of correction and then confirm termination is in the child’s best interests, irrespective of statutory timelines.

By vacating and remanding both the adjudicatory and dispositional orders, the Court ensures strict adherence to statutory and procedural mandates designed to protect children while safeguarding parental rights through clear, evidence-based decision making.