Introduction

This memorandum decision arises from the appeal in In re D.B., decided May 6, 2025, by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. The case involves Petitioner Mother A.M., who challenged the Marion County Circuit Court’s denial of a post-adjudicatory improvement period and the termination of her parental, custodial, and guardianship rights to her child, D.B. Key issues include whether A.M.’s oral stipulation at the adjudicatory hearing satisfied Rule 26(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings and whether the circuit court retained subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed to disposition and termination absent a proper stipulation.

Parties:

• Petitioner: Mother A.M., represented by Christopher M. Wilson.
• Respondent: Department of Human Services (formerly DHHR), represented by the Attorney General’s Office.
• Guardian ad litem: Holly L. Netz.

Background facts: On December 18, 2022, D.B.’s father fatally overdosed on fentanyl in the family home, and his drug paraphernalia was accessible to the child. A.M. was arrested for neglect. The DHS filed an abuse and neglect petition on December 20, 2022, also citing a prior involuntary termination of A.M.’s parental rights in 2016 without specifying its basis. At the February 13, 2023 adjudicatory hearing, A.M. orally stipulated to the petition’s allegations but did not include any statement of the deficiencies she needed to correct.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Appeals vacated both the circuit court’s March 7, 2023 adjudicatory order and its September 15, 2023 dispositional order terminating A.M.’s parental rights. The Court held that:

1. A.M.’s oral stipulation failed to satisfy Rule 26(a)(2) because it lacked a statement of the respondent’s specific deficiencies to be remedied by the dispositional hearing.
2. A proper adjudication under Rule 26(a) is a jurisdictional prerequisite; without it, the circuit court had no authority to proceed to disposition or to terminate parental rights.
3. The orders were vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings compliant with Rule 26(a) and proper adjudicatory protocol.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Rule 26(a), WV Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceeding: Requires a stipulated adjudication to include (1) agreed facts supporting court involvement, and (2) a statement of respondent’s problems or deficiencies to be addressed at disposition.
• In re Z.S.-1 (249 W. Va. 14, 893 S.E.2d 621 (2023)), Syllabus Point 3: Restated Rule 26(a) as mandating both elements in the stipulation to avoid discrepancies between adjudicatory and dispositional rulings.
• In re Boggs’ Est. (135 W. Va. 288, 63 S.E.2d 497 (1951)): Subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage, even sua sponte by an appellate court.
• State ex rel. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Wilson (239 W. Va. 338, 801 S.E.2d 216 (2017)), Syllabus Point 2: Appellate courts must notice lack of jurisdiction at any time.
• In re Cecil T. (228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011)), Syllabus Point 1: Abuse and neglect findings reviewed for clear error; legal conclusions reviewed de novo.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning proceeds in three steps:

1. Rule 26(a) Requirements: The Court emphasized that a binding stipulation must contain both the factual basis for court intervention and an explicit articulation of the respondent’s deficiencies to be rectified. This dual requirement ensures that the respondent and the court clearly understand the goals of any improvement period and the standards for reunification.
2. Jurisdictional Consequence: Building on In re Z.S.-1, the Court held that failure to satisfy Rule 26(a) deprives the circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction to enter any dispositional orders, including improvement periods or termination of parental rights. Jurisdictional defects cannot be waived by the parties.
3. Application to A.M.’s Stipulation: A.M. admitted facts concerning unsafe conditions and prior termination, but she made no stipulation as to what she would need to do to remedy those conditions. The absence of specific remedial goals rendered her stipulation defective under Rule 26(a)(2). Consequently, the circuit court’s adjudication was void, and it could not validly proceed to terminate her parental rights.

3. Impact

This decision reinforces procedural safeguards in West Virginia’s abuse and neglect framework by:

• Ensuring that stipulations are comprehensive, transparent, and tailored to the respondent’s actual needs.
• Limiting the risk of premature termination of parental rights based on unclear or incomplete stipulations.
• Providing lower courts and practitioners with a clear directive: any stipulated adjudication must specify not only the underlying facts but also the respondent’s actionable deficiencies to be addressed.

Future litigants and courts must strictly adhere to Rule 26(a) or face vacatur and remand for compliance, thereby strengthening procedural fairness and clarity in child welfare proceedings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Stipulated Adjudication

An agreement by the respondent admitting the facts alleged in the petition. It accelerates court involvement by avoiding a contested evidence hearing.

Rule 26(a)(1): Facts Supporting Involvement

Agreed facts showing why the child is “abused or neglected,” for example, unsafe home conditions or exposure to drugs.

Rule 26(a)(2): Deficiencies to Be Addressed

A clear statement of what the parent must correct or improve—such as obtaining stable housing, completing parenting classes, or resolving substance abuse.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court’s legal authority to hear and decide a case. In child abuse and neglect proceedings, a proper adjudication is essential before moving to disposition.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Appeals’ memorandum decision in In re D.B. establishes and reaffirms a jurisdictional prerequisite: any stipulated adjudication under Rule 26(a) must include both agreed‐upon facts and an explicit statement of the respondent’s deficiencies to be remediated. This requirement is non‐waivable and serves to protect due process in the critical juncture between adjudication and disposition. Lower courts, guardians ad litem, DHS attorneys, and respondents must ensure full compliance with Rule 26(a) to avoid vacatur and duplication of proceedings. Ultimately, the decision enhances procedural clarity and promotes the reliability of welfare determinations in West Virginia family courts.