Mandating Child-Specific Findings in Abuse and Neglect Adjudications: In re A.B., Z.J., J.J.-1, R.J.-1 & J.J.-2

Introduction

In the May 6, 2025 memorandum decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia—In re A.B., Z.J., J.J.-1, R.J.-1, and J.J.-2 (No. 24-328)—the Court addressed the termination of parental and custodial rights of R.J.-1 (“the petitioner father”) to five children. The Department of Human Services (“DHS”) filed the underlying abuse and neglect petition in October 2023 after the newborn child Z.J. suffered withdrawal symptoms from maternal drug use in the home shared by the petitioner father and his girlfriend. Three older children (J.J.-1, R.J.-1, and J.J.-2) were in their mother’s sole custody and had no contact with the petitioner for four years; A.B. and Z.J. resided with him. The circuit court adjudicated all five children as abused or neglected based on the father’s stipulation of substance abuse and then terminated his rights to four children and custodial rights to A.B. On appeal, the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the termination regarding A.B. and Z.J., vacated the adjudicatory and dispositional orders as to J.J.-1, R.J.-1, and J.J.-2, and remanded for proceedings consistent with the requirement of individualized, child-specific findings.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s decision can be summarized in three core holdings:

Affirmed the circuit court’s termination of parental rights to Z.J. and custodial rights to A.B., finding sufficient evidence that the father’s long-standing substance abuse harmed those children and that no improvement period would succeed.
Vacated the adjudicatory and dispositional orders in part as to J.J.-1, R.J.-1, and J.J.-2, because the circuit court made generalized findings without explaining how the father’s conduct impacted these three children, who did not reside with him and had no recent contact.
Remanded for further proceedings, directing the circuit court either to make child-specific factual findings demonstrating abuse or neglect of J.J.-1, R.J.-1, and J.J.-2 at the time of the petition, or to dismiss the petition as to those children if no such findings can be made.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re C.S. (247 W. Va. 212, 875 S.E.2d 350 (2022), Syllabus Pt. 8): Requires that a child be an “abused” or “neglected” child based on conditions existing at petition filing for circuit court jurisdiction.
In re B.V. (248 W. Va. 29, 886 S.E.2d 364 (2023), Syllabus Pt. 3): Commands specific factual findings explaining how each child’s welfare is harmed; generalized, umbrella findings are insufficient.
In re Emily G. (224 W. Va. 390, 686 S.E.2d 41 (2009), Syllabus Pt. 5): Mandates vacation and remand when statutory or procedural requirements are substantially disregarded.
In re A.P.-1 (241 W. Va. 688, 827 S.E.2d 830 (2019), Syllabus Pt. 3): A child must first be adjudicated abused or neglected before dispositional alternatives can be considered.
In re Emily (208 W. Va. 325, 540 S.E.2d 542 (2000)): Holds that one fit parent’s status does not shield the other parent from termination if that parent’s conduct endangers the child.
In re Tonja M. (212 W. Va. 443, 573 S.E.2d 354 (2002)): Affirms circuit court discretion to deny improvement periods when success is unlikely.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court applied a two-step framework: (1) adjudicatory phase—establish abuse or neglect by specific findings for each child; (2) dispositional phase—select the least-restrictive plan that protects the child’s welfare where no improvement is anticipated.

For J.J.-1, R.J.-1, and J.J.-2, the father stipulated only to generalized substance impairment of parenting skills without any evidence these three children, living separately, suffered harm at filing. Under Rule 21(d) W. Va. R. App. P. and Syllabus Pt. 3 of In re B.V., the Court held that blanket findings violated due process and statutory mandates, warranting vacatur of counsel’s orders as they applied to those children.

For A.B. and Z.J., who resided in the father’s home and experienced direct consequences of parental substance abuse (including Z.J.’s withdrawal symptoms), the Court found clear support for termination under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(6): no reasonable likelihood of correction and the necessity of termination for the children’s welfare.

Impact

This decision crystallizes a rigorous procedural safeguard in West Virginia abuse and neglect law:

Circuit courts must make individualized, child-by-child factual findings at adjudication.
Generalized or omnibus findings will be reversed as to any child lacking specific proof of harm or threat.
Parties will have a renewed opportunity on remand to develop evidence specific to each child’s experiences at petition filing.

Going forward, social service agencies and attorneys must tailor petitions, hearings, and orders to the distinct circumstances of each child named, or risk reversal and remand.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Adjudication vs. Disposition: Adjudication determines whether there is judicial jurisdiction by finding abuse or neglect; disposition selects the plan for the child’s future (improvement period, supervised visitation, termination, adoption, etc.).
Stipulation: A procedural admission by a party that certain facts are true. Here, the father admitted to substance abuse impairing his parenting skills, but that alone does not substitute for proof of harm to each child.
Improvement Period: A court-ordered opportunity for a parent to engage in treatment/services. A court may deny one if previous services have failed and further success is unlikely.
Least-Restrictive Alternative: The dispositional mandate to choose the plan that imposes the fewest constraints consistent with child welfare—e.g., reducing custody rather than full termination if possible.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in In re A.B., Z.J., J.J.-1, R.J.-1 & J.J.-2 reinforces the constitutional and statutory imperative of specificity in child abuse and neglect proceedings. By vacating orders that relied on generalized findings for three children not living in the petitioner’s home, the Court underscored that each child’s rights and circumstances must be individually proven and adjudicated. Practitioners and lower courts must now ensure petitions, hearings, and judgments articulate clear, fact-specific determinations for every child named. The ruling preserves the balance between protecting children and safeguarding parental due process in family courts across West Virginia.