Mandatory Findings in Abuse-and-Neglect Adjudications: Orders Dismissing a Petition Must Contain Fact Findings Under W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(i) and Rule 27

1. Introduction

In re F.B. (Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, May 29, 2026) addresses a recurring procedural failure in child abuse-and-neglect litigation: whether a circuit court may dismiss an abuse-and-neglect petition after adjudicatory hearings without making the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by statute and rule.

The West Virginia Department of Human Services (“DHS”) filed a Sixth Amended Petition alleging that two children, S.H. and F.B., were abused and neglected by Mother T.M. and Stepfather M.M. The allegations arose primarily from a May 10, 2023 altercation between Mother and S.H., recorded in cell-phone videos, and later explored in forensic interviews (including one of F.B.). After two adjudicatory hearings, the circuit court dismissed the petition, stating DHS failed to prove abuse/neglect by clear and convincing evidence. The guardian ad litem (“GAL”) appealed only as to F.B.

The core issue on appeal was not whether abuse or neglect occurred on the merits, but whether the circuit court’s summary dismissal—without specific factual findings—complied with W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(i) and Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings, and whether it allowed meaningful appellate review.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the circuit court’s October 15, 2024 adjudicatory order and October 28, 2024 supplemental order as they relate to F.B., because the circuit court did not make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining why F.B. was not abused or neglected.

The Court held that, where the record contains conflicting evidence and the circuit court acknowledges “significant evidence for and against the respondent parents,” a conclusory statement that the petition was not proven by clear and convincing evidence is inadequate. The circuit court must “adequately grapple with conflicting evidence and credibility determinations” and incorporate those findings into a new adjudicatory order consistent with the statute and Rule 27.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• In re K.S. (Syl. Pt. 1): Provided the operative standard of review for abuse-and-neglect appeals: abuse of discretion for substantive rulings, clear error for supporting factual findings, and de novo for legal/statutory questions.
  Role in this case: The Court emphasized it normally defers to circuit-court factfinding, but that deference presupposes actual findings exist to review.
• In re Edward B. (Syl. Pt. 5): Established that when the mandatory procedures in the Rules and related statutes are “substantially disregarded or frustrated,” the resulting order will be vacated and remanded for compliance.
  Role in this case: The Court applied this principle to adjudication: the failure to make required adjudicatory findings frustrates the process and requires vacatur.
• In re H.B.: Recognized vacatur is appropriate where a circuit court “substantially frustrated the process by disregarding the applicable statutes and rules” in adjudication and disposition.
  Role in this case: Reinforced that noncompliance at adjudication is a reversible procedural defect, not a harmless technicality.
• In re Joseph A. (Syl. Pt. 1): Noted the abuse-and-neglect statute does not prescribe a particular “manner or mode” of evidence DHS must present.
  Role in this case: The Court used it to avoid dictating what evidence the circuit court must credit, while insisting the court must explain what it did credit and why.
• Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C.: Appellate courts do not reassess witness credibility from a cold record.
  Role in this case: Underscored the central problem: without circuit-court credibility findings, the Supreme Court cannot “fill the gap” on appeal.
• State v. Guthrie: Reaffirmed that weighing evidence and judging credibility are for the trier of fact, not the appellate court.
  Role in this case: Supported the Court’s refusal to resolve factual discrepancies left unaddressed by the circuit court.
• Province v. Province: Required findings to be sufficient to reveal the factual and legal basis for the decision; otherwise meaningful review is impossible and deference is “nullified.”
  Role in this case: Provided the reviewability principle: conclusory findings prevent appellate oversight and undermine deference.
• In re R.L. (memorandum decision): Applied Province and affirmed a sparse written order where “ample” findings were made on the record.
  Role in this case: Demonstrated that findings can be written or oral—what matters is that they exist and are sufficiently detailed.
• In re K.E. (memorandum decision): Quoted the proposition that clear findings are “essential” for proper appellate review.
  Role in this case: Reinforced that the finding requirement is functional (enabling review), not merely formal.
• Nicpon v. Nicpon: Source for the quoted maxim that clear and complete findings are essential to avoid appellate overreach.
  Role in this case: Anchored the Court’s insistence on findings as a separation-of-functions safeguard between trial and appellate courts.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three linked steps:

1. The law mandates findings at adjudication.
   W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(i) requires that “[a]t the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing, the court shall … make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the child is abused or neglected,” and that such findings “be incorporated into the order.”
   Rule 27 mirrors this mandate and requires an order “including findings of fact and conclusions of law” within ten days.
2. Meaningful appellate review depends on those findings.
   Under In re K.S., appellate review turns on whether factual findings are clearly erroneous and whether substantive rulings abuse discretion. But the Court cannot apply those standards where the circuit court provides only a bottom-line conclusion and does not resolve material conflicts in the evidence.
3. When procedures are “substantially disregarded,” vacatur is required.
   Citing In re Edward B. and In re H.B., the Court treated the omission as a breakdown of the mandatory process—especially problematic here, where the circuit court acknowledged “significant evidence for and against the respondent parents,” yet did not articulate how it evaluated that conflict.

Importantly, the Court did not decide whether the evidence proved abuse or neglect. It instead held that the circuit court’s failure to make required findings prevented the Supreme Court from performing its reviewing function without impermissibly weighing evidence or making credibility determinations itself.

3.3 Impact

Procedural enforcement at adjudication (including dismissals). The most significant doctrinal takeaway is that the findings requirement applies with full force even when a circuit court rejects DHS’s petition and dismisses the case. A dismissal cannot rest on generalized statements (e.g., “concerning but not clear and convincing”) without the supporting factual determinations that explain why the statutory standard was not met.

Clarifies the trial/appellate boundary. The opinion reinforces that, in abuse-and-neglect cases involving conflicting testimony, appellate courts will not “reverse engineer” a factfinding rationale from an ambiguous record. If the circuit court does not do the factfinding work, the remedy is vacatur and remand.

Practical effects on circuit-court drafting and hearing practice. Circuit courts are incentivized to: (a) make oral findings at the conclusion of adjudication or (b) enter detailed written findings—ideally both—addressing key evidence, credibility conflicts, and how the statutory definitions and burden of proof apply to the child at issue.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Adjudicatory hearing: The phase where the court decides whether the child is an “abused or neglected child” and whether the respondent committed abuse/neglect. It is not about final placement; it is about whether the petition’s allegations are proven.
• Clear and convincing evidence: A heightened civil burden of proof requiring a firm belief or conviction in the truth of the allegations—more than “more likely than not,” less than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
• Findings of fact vs. conclusions of law:
  “Findings of fact” are what the court determines happened (e.g., whether alcohol use occurred, whether a child witnessed violence, whether injuries were present). “Conclusions of law” apply legal standards to those facts (e.g., whether those facts meet statutory definitions of abuse or neglect).
• Credibility determinations: Decisions about which witnesses or evidence to believe when accounts conflict. Appellate courts generally cannot do this from a transcript; trial courts must do it and explain it.
• Vacated and remanded with instructions: The appellate court nullifies the defective order and sends the case back, directing the lower court to redo the decision using the proper procedure (here, entry of a new adjudicatory order with findings and conclusions).

5. Conclusion

In re F.B. establishes and reinforces a practical rule of West Virginia abuse-and-neglect procedure: a circuit court’s adjudicatory decision—especially amid conflicting evidence—must include specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(i) and Rule 27, even when dismissing the petition. Without those findings, meaningful appellate review is impossible, and the adjudicatory order will be vacated and remanded under the principles articulated in In re Edward B. and related authority.