No Automatic Inclusion: West Virginia Supreme Court Requires Individual Adjudication for Each Child Before Disposition in Abuse and Neglect Proceedings

Introduction

In In re A.B., L.E., and J.B., No. 24-484 (W. Va. Sept. 10, 2025), the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia issued a memorandum decision that both reinforces and sharpens a core procedural requirement in abuse and neglect proceedings: a circuit court must enter individualized adjudicatory findings for each child before it may proceed to disposition. The case arises from a Wood County proceeding involving Petitioner Mother S.B. and her three children—L.E., J.B., and a later-born child, A.B.—after the Department of Human Services (DHS) alleged the mother’s alcohol abuse and unsafe home conditions constituted neglect.

The key issues on appeal were:

• Whether the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to terminate parental rights to A.B. because it dispensed with adjudication for that child; and
• Whether the mother’s admissions (stipulation) at the original adjudicatory hearing were legally sufficient to support adjudication of neglect as to L.E. and J.B.

The Court affirmed the termination of parental rights as to L.E. and J.B., but vacated the termination as to A.B. and remanded, holding that the absence of adjudication as to A.B. deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction to proceed to disposition for that child.

Summary of the Opinion

• Adjudication is a jurisdictional prerequisite to disposition in child abuse and neglect cases, and it must be performed for each child named in the petition. Because the circuit court “dispense[d] with a formal adjudication” for A.B., it lacked jurisdiction to terminate the mother’s rights to that child. The Court vacated the dispositional order as to A.B. and remanded for entry of an adjudicatory order containing the required findings. See In re Z.S.-1; In re B.V.; W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(i).
• A parent’s adjudicatory stipulation can, by itself, supply a sufficient factual basis for adjudication if it complies with Rule 26(a) of the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings. The mother’s stipulation—admitting unsanitary home conditions and alcohol abuse impairing parenting, and expressing the need for services—met Rule 26(a)’s two-part requirement. The Court affirmed the adjudications and, therefore, the termination as to L.E. and J.B. See In re Z.S.-1.
• Because the mother did not assign specific error to the dispositional findings for L.E. and J.B., and the record showed noncompliance culminating in a relapse and cessation of services and visitation, the termination as to those two children was affirmed.

Factual and Procedural Background

• Initial Petition (Aug. 2022): DHS alleged neglect of L.E. and J.B. based on an unsanitary, unsafe home (food and trash throughout; holes in walls/ceilings; clutter in the shower and in a child’s bed) and the mother’s alcohol abuse impairing parenting.
• Adjudication (Oct. 2022): The mother, represented by counsel, stipulated that the home “was trashed” and that she abused alcohol impairing her parenting. She requested an improvement period to address substance abuse and develop parenting/life skills. The court adjudicated her a neglectful parent and granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period with conditions (sobriety and drug screens, therapy, parenting/life skills, safe housing, parental fitness evaluation, and treatment).
• Parental Fitness Evaluation (Feb. 2023): The evaluator found the mother did not acknowledge an alcohol use disorder or neglect concerns; prognosis “guarded,” citing apparent lack of appropriate attachment in the parent-child relationship.
• Birth of A.B. (May 2023) and Amended Petition: A.B. was removed from the hospital and placed in DHS custody. At a June 2023 hearing, the court—without an adjudication—added A.B. to the case upon the parties’ assent and stated “no additional adjudication [was] needed,” memorialized in a July 14, 2023 order.
• Review Hearings (Aug. 2023–Mar. 2024): Mixed-to-negative progress: missed screens; minimal engagement in therapy; no participation in inpatient or intensive outpatient treatment (IOP); persistent concerns about the mother’s ability to manage three very young children. The court extended improvement periods as DHS intermittently reported some improvement.
• Disposition (June 2024): The mother failed to appear; counsel’s continuance request was denied. Reports showed she had “dropped out,” relapsed, ceased services and visits since March 2024, and indicated an intent to relinquish. The court terminated parental rights to all three children, finding no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction in the near future and that termination served the children’s welfare.

Key Holdings and Rules

• Each child must be adjudicated as abused or neglected based on conditions at the time the petition was filed; without such adjudication, the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed to disposition for that child. See In re Z.S.-1; In re B.V.; W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(i).
• Parties’ assent cannot cure the absence of adjudication; adjudication is a jurisdictional prerequisite that cannot be waived or “dispensed with.”
• Adjudicatory stipulations are valid if they:
  • Include agreed facts supporting court involvement regarding the respondent’s conduct/condition; and
  • State the respondent’s problems or deficiencies to be addressed at disposition. See Rule 26(a); In re Z.S.-1.
  When these elements are satisfied, additional evidence is not required to adjudicate.
• Where child protection procedures are substantially disregarded, the resulting disposition is subject to vacatur and remand. See Syl. Pt. 5, In re Edward B.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011): Establishes the standard of review—clear error for factual findings and de novo for legal conclusions. This frames the Court’s approach: it defers to the circuit court’s factfinding (e.g., compliance and relapse) but reviews jurisdictional and procedural issues anew.
• In re Z.S.-1, 249 W. Va. 14, 893 S.E.2d 621 (2023): Two pivotal points:
  • The “adjudicatory process is a jurisdictional prerequisite” to disposition. Failure to adjudicate any given child deprives the court of jurisdiction as to that child.
  • Rule 26(a) governs stipulations: they must contain both agreed facts establishing the basis for court involvement and a statement of the respondent’s problems/deficiencies to be addressed at disposition. A compliant stipulation can support adjudication without additional evidence.
• In re B.V., 248 W. Va. 29, 886 S.E.2d 364 (2023), quoting In re C.S. and B.S., 247 W. Va. 212, 875 S.E.2d 350 (2022): Reiterates that adjudication requires findings, based on conditions at the time of filing, that the child is an “abused” or “neglected” child as defined by W. Va. Code § 49-1-201, and mandates specific findings explaining how each child’s health/welfare is harmed or threatened.
• In re Edward B., 210 W. Va. 621, 558 S.E.2d 620 (2001): When the statutory and rule-based process is substantially disregarded, dispositional orders must be vacated and the case remanded for compliance. This authority underpins the Court’s vacatur of the termination order as to A.B.
• Statutes:
  • W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(i): At the conclusion of adjudication, the court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the child is abused/neglected and whether the respondent is abusing/neglecting.
  • W. Va. Code § 49-1-201: Defines “abused child” and “neglected child,” anchoring the adjudicatory inquiry.
  • (Contextual) W. Va. Code § 49-4-604: Governs disposition, including the “no reasonable likelihood” standard and the children’s welfare factors the circuit court considered here.

Legal Reasoning

1) A.B.: No adjudication, no jurisdiction

The circuit court “dispense[d] with a formal adjudication” for A.B., apparently because the mother had already been adjudicated as to L.E. and J.B. and her improvement period was “going well.” The Supreme Court held this was reversible error: adjudication is an indispensable, non-waivable prerequisite to disposition for each child. The circuit court’s failure to make child-specific findings as to whether and how A.B. was abused or neglected at the time of filing deprived it of jurisdiction to terminate as to A.B. The Court vacated the termination as to A.B. and remanded for proper adjudication with statutorily required findings. See In re Z.S.-1; In re B.V.; W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(i).

2) L.E. and J.B.: Stipulation satisfied Rule 26(a), supporting adjudication

The mother contended her stipulation was insufficient to support adjudication. The Court disagreed. Her admissions—unsanitary conditions (“was trashed”) and alcohol abuse impairing parenting—were agreed facts justifying court involvement, and her request to participate in services to address substance abuse and develop parenting skills identified the problems and deficiencies to be addressed at disposition. That is precisely what Rule 26(a) requires. Because the stipulation was adequate and unchallenged as to voluntariness, DHS was not obliged to present additional evidence to adjudicate. See In re Z.S.-1.

3) Disposition as to L.E. and J.B.: Termination affirmed

Once adjudication was established for L.E. and J.B., the circuit court had authority to reach disposition. The record showed sustained noncompliance culminating in a relapse, cessation of services, and an abandonment of visitation, coupled with statements about relinquishment. The court found no reasonable likelihood of substantial correction in the near future and that termination served the children’s welfare, including their need for continuity of care and timely integration into a stable home. The mother raised no assignment of error challenging these dispositional findings. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed termination as to L.E. and J.B.

Impact and Practical Implications

Immediate case effects

• A.B.: The termination is vacated and the case remanded for an adjudicatory hearing (or a compliant stipulation) and an adjudicatory order with specific findings regarding whether A.B. is an abused/neglected child under § 49-1-201 based on conditions at the time the amended petition was filed.
• L.E. and J.B.: Terminations are affirmed. The permanency plan remains adoption for J.B. and A.B. (subject to A.B.’s remand) and placement with the nonabusing father for L.E.

Guidance for courts and practitioners

• No “automatic inclusion” of later-born siblings: When a new child is added by amended petition, the court must conduct an adjudication (or accept a Rule 26(a)-compliant stipulation) and enter child-specific findings explaining how that child’s health/welfare is harmed or threatened. Parties’ assent cannot confer jurisdiction.
• Draft adjudicatory orders carefully: Orders must:
  • Identify the time-relevant facts (conditions at filing);
  • Apply the statutory definitions in § 49-1-201; and
  • Explain how those facts meet the definition as to each child.
• Use stipulations correctly: A stipulation can suffice when it:
  • Sets out agreed facts supporting court involvement (e.g., specific neglectful conduct); and
  • States the respondent’s problems/deficiencies to be addressed (e.g., substance abuse, lack of parenting skills) and signals a plan for services.
  Ensure the stipulation is filed, the court conducts a colloquy confirming knowing and voluntary consent, and the adjudicatory order references the stipulation and includes the required findings.
• Preserve the record: File written stipulations and service-compliance reports; incorporate parental fitness evaluations; and ensure CASA and DHS reports are admitted with opportunities for response. These materials often prove decisive on appeal.
• Prevent avoidable reversals: Skipping adjudication—even where facts seem uncontested—risks vacatur, delays permanency, and may separate siblings in legal status. The safest course is prompt adjudication with clear findings for every child.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Adjudication vs. Disposition: Adjudication is the court’s determination, based on evidence at the time of filing, whether a child is abused/neglected and whether the respondent is an abusing/neglecting parent. Disposition follows adjudication and decides remedies (e.g., improvement period, termination), guided by statutory factors and the child’s welfare.
• Jurisdictional prerequisite: A step the court must take to have legal authority to act further. Without adjudication, the court has no power to make dispositional decisions as to that child.
• Stipulation (Rule 26(a)): A parent can admit facts and acknowledge issues to be addressed instead of having the State prove them at a contested adjudication. The stipulation must include agreed facts and an identification of parental problems/deficiencies to be addressed.
• Improvement period: A structured, court-ordered period during which the parent engages in services (treatment, therapy, parenting classes, etc.) to correct the conditions of abuse or neglect. Failure to participate meaningfully or to improve can support termination.
• No reasonable likelihood of substantial correction: A dispositional standard, often grounded in W. Va. Code § 49-4-604, meaning the underlying conditions of abuse/neglect are unlikely to be corrected in the near future despite services.
• Vacate and remand: To set aside the order (in whole or part) and return the case to the lower court for proceedings consistent with the appellate decision.

Observations and Practice Pointers

• Child-specific findings are non-negotiable: Even if siblings share identical risk factors, the court must make findings as to each child, based on the moment the petition was filed for that child.
• Stipulation sufficiency: The opinion underscores that a properly constructed stipulation eliminates the need for the State to introduce additional adjudicatory evidence. Craft stipulations with concrete facts and clearly identified deficiencies to be addressed.
• Written record matters: Although the mother’s written stipulation was not included in the appendix, her sworn admissions at the adjudicatory hearing saved the adjudication for L.E. and J.B. Best practice is to file the written stipulation and attach it to or incorporate it into the adjudicatory order.
• Avoid prejudicial shortcuts: The circuit court’s well-intentioned “dispense with adjudication” for A.B. to streamline proceedings backfired, causing delay and necessitating remand. Expediency should never come at the cost of jurisdictional steps.

Conclusion

In re A.B., L.E., and J.B. delivers a clear procedural message: adjudication is not optional, not collective, and not waivable. Each child added to an abuse and neglect case requires individualized adjudicatory findings rooted in conditions at the time of filing. The decision also clarifies that a Rule 26(a)-compliant stipulation can, standing alone, support adjudication, streamlining proceedings where appropriate. By affirming termination as to L.E. and J.B. while vacating and remanding as to A.B., the Court balances the imperative of permanency with strict adherence to due process and statutory procedure. For trial courts and practitioners, the case is a practical roadmap to avoid avoidable reversals: file an amended petition for a later-born child, try or properly stipulate that child’s adjudication, enter child-specific findings, and only then proceed to disposition.

Key Citations

• In re A.B., L.E., and J.B., No. 24-484 (W. Va. Sept. 10, 2025) (mem.).
• In re Z.S.-1, 249 W. Va. 14, 893 S.E.2d 621 (2023).
• In re B.V., 248 W. Va. 29, 886 S.E.2d 364 (2023).
• In re C.S. and B.S., 247 W. Va. 212, 875 S.E.2d 350 (2022).
• In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011).
• In re Edward B., 210 W. Va. 621, 558 S.E.2d 620 (2001).
• W. Va. Code §§ 49-1-201, 49-4-601(i), 49-4-604.