Rule 26(a) Stipulations Alone Can Support Adjudication When Children Are in the Parent’s Custody

Case: In re K.M. and L.M., No. 24-679 (Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Oct. 14, 2025)

Disposition: Affirmed (termination of parental, custodial, and guardianship rights)

Introduction

This memorandum decision clarifies two recurring adjudication issues in West Virginia child abuse and neglect practice. First, it confirms that a respondent parent’s stipulation that complies with Rule 26(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings is, by itself, sufficient to support adjudication without additional evidence, particularly where the stipulation admits substance abuse that impaired parenting. Second, it holds that where all children named in the petition were in the respondent’s custody at the time of filing, a circuit court’s express finding that those children are “abused and neglected” satisfies the jurisdictional prerequisite to proceed to disposition; child-by-child harm findings of the sort required in non-custody cases are not necessary.

The Department of Human Services (DHS) petitioned in May 2023 alleging that Father M.M. abused illegal substances impairing his parenting and maintained unsafe conditions (drug paraphernalia and white powder within reach of children K.M. and L.M.). After waiving a preliminary hearing, Father stipulated at the July 2023 adjudication that his substance abuse impaired his parenting, submitted a signed written stipulation listing issues and deficiencies to be addressed (including substance use, parenting, and adult life skills), and stated he would participate in an improvement period. The circuit court adjudicated him abusive/neglectful and, after subsequent proceedings, terminated his parental rights in September 2024. Father appealed, arguing the court (1) improperly adjudicated him based solely on an insufficient stipulation; and (2) failed to make adequate adjudicatory findings—allegedly depriving the court of jurisdiction to proceed to disposition.

Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court affirmed. It held that:

• A written and oral stipulation that meets Rule 26(a)’s two components—(1) agreed facts supporting court involvement regarding the respondent’s conduct or condition; and (2) a statement of the respondent’s problems or deficiencies to be addressed at disposition—provides a sufficient basis to adjudicate a parent without additional evidence. Here, Father’s admissions that his drug use impaired his parenting and his written list of deficiencies satisfied Rule 26(a), obviating DHS’s need to present further proof of harm.
• Because both K.M. and L.M. were in Father’s custody when the petition was filed, the circuit court’s express finding that they were “abused and neglected” was sufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisite for disposition. Case law requiring child-specific harm findings applies when a named child is not in the respondent’s custody (e.g., in guardianship or otherwise out of the respondent’s care); it does not bar generalized findings where all children were subject to the respondent’s conduct and the parent has admitted impaired parenting.

Analysis

Governing Standards

• Standard of review: Findings of fact are reviewed for clear error; legal conclusions de novo (Syl. Pt. 1, In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011)).
• Rule 26(a) stipulations must include: (1) agreed facts supporting court involvement; and (2) a statement of the respondent’s problems/deficiencies to be addressed at disposition (In re Z.S.-1, 249 W. Va. 14, 893 S.E.2d 621 (2023)).
• Adjudication is a jurisdictional prerequisite; the court must find, based on conditions at filing, that the child is an “abused child” or “neglected child” under W. Va. Code § 49-1-201 before proceeding to disposition (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)).

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• In re Z.S.-1 (2023): The Court leaned heavily on Z.S.-1, which articulated what a Rule 26(a) stipulation must contain. The father’s stipulation in this case checked both boxes: he admitted abuse/neglect via drug use impairing parenting (agreed facts justifying court involvement) and identified deficiencies to address at disposition (substance abuse; parenting/adult life skills). This allowed the court to adjudicate without further evidence.
• In re J.L.-1 (2020) (memorandum decision): Distinguished. There, the father contested adjudication and findings hinged on post-removal drug screens; here, Father stipulated while the children were in his custody when the conduct occurred. Thus, J.L.-1 did not constrain adjudication on this record.
• In re B.V. (2023) and In re C.S. and B.S. (2022): These decisions clarify that the mere fact of a guardianship does not bar jurisdiction, but when a named child is not in the respondent’s custody, generalized findings are insufficient; courts must make child-specific factual findings connecting the parent’s conduct to harm or risk for that child. In this case, both children were in Father’s custody; therefore, the heightened child-specific articulation required by B.V. for non-custody children did not apply. The Court nonetheless acknowledged that more robust findings would be preferred, but found the adjudication adequate.
• In re D.C. (2024) (memorandum decision): In D.C., the mother’s stipulated drug use did not suffice where neither child was in her custody; the Court required specific findings linking her conduct to each child. The present case is the flip side: Father’s custody of both children at filing, coupled with his admission of impaired parenting, rendered generalized adjudicatory findings sufficient.
• In re D.A. (2022) (memorandum decision): Cited by Father for the proposition that drug use, without more, cannot support adjudication. The Court distinguished D.A. because there the circuit court failed to explain how drug use impacted parenting and threatened harm following a contested hearing. Here, Father expressly admitted that his substance abuse impaired his parenting, and the stipulation described deficiencies to be addressed. The Court also underscored its more recent statement in In re S.C. (2023) that a parent’s methamphetamine abuse threatens a child’s health and welfare and that courts may presume attendant dangers associated with illegal drug abuse when protecting children under a lower standard of proof.
• In re S.C., 248 W. Va. 628, 889 S.E.2d 710 (2023): The Court cited S.C. to support a protective presumption: parental illegal drug abuse carries attendant risks to child welfare, and in abuse/neglect proceedings—where the standard of proof is lower and policy favors erring on the side of child protection—courts may acknowledge those risks without exacting the same showing required in criminal contexts. This bolsters the sufficiency of stipulations admitting impaired parenting due to drug use.
• In re J.W. (2025) (memorandum decision): The Court reiterated that the determinative adjudicatory requirement for moving to disposition is the finding that the child is abused or neglected (W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(i)). Having made that finding here, the circuit court properly proceeded to disposition, culminating in termination (not independently challenged on appeal).

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in two steps.

Step 1: The stipulation’s sufficiency under Rule 26(a). The father made both an oral stipulation on the record and filed a signed written stipulation. He admitted that he abused illegal substances to the extent his parenting was impaired and that the children were abused and neglected within the meaning of West Virginia law. He also set out the issues and deficiencies to be addressed—his substance abuse and the need to develop parenting and adult life skills—and asked for an improvement period. These admissions squarely meet Rule 26(a)’s dual requirements (agreed facts supporting court involvement; statement of deficiencies to be addressed at disposition), so the circuit court could adjudicate based solely on the stipulation. The DHS was not required to prove independently how his conduct threatened the children’s welfare because Father conceded the necessary impairment and status, and the children were in his custody.

Step 2: Adequacy of adjudicatory findings and jurisdiction. The father argued the adjudicatory order lacked the specificity needed to confer jurisdiction—particularly, that it did not detail, child-by-child, how each child was abused or neglected. The Court rejected this contention, explaining that:

• Adjudication is jurisdictional, but the governing statute requires a finding of whether the child is abused or neglected; once made, the court may proceed to disposition (W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(i); In re J.W.).
• Child-specific findings are required when a named child was not in the respondent’s custody at the time of filing (as in B.V. and D.C.). Where, as here, both children were in Father’s custody and subject to his conduct, the circuit court’s findings that each child was abused and neglected, grounded in Father’s Rule 26(a)-compliant stipulation, satisfied the jurisdictional prerequisite.
• Although the Court acknowledged the adjudicatory order “could have been more robust,” the core statutory finding was present and supported by the stipulation. Therefore, the court had authority to proceed to disposition, and termination stands.

Impact and Practical Implications

This decision has immediate, practice-oriented implications in West Virginia abuse and neglect proceedings:

• Stipulations matter: A properly crafted Rule 26(a) stipulation can, without more, carry adjudication. Respondents should understand that admitting “impaired parenting” due to substance use, coupled with a written list of deficiencies to be addressed, may foreclose later arguments that DHS failed to prove harm.
• Custody status is decisive for specificity: If a child is not in the respondent’s custody at filing, courts must make child-by-child findings linking the respondent’s conduct to harm or risk. If all children are in the respondent’s custody, a general finding that each is abused/neglected suffices—especially where the parent stipulates to impaired parenting.
• Protective presumption regarding drug use: Following In re S.C., courts may presume the attendant dangers of illegal drug abuse in the child-protection context. While contested cases still require findings tying drug use to impaired parenting and risk, stipulations acknowledging impairment will satisfy that link.
• Drafting adjudicatory orders: Even though minimal findings can suffice in custody-and-stipulation scenarios, the Court signaled a preference for fuller findings. Circuit courts should still articulate how the admitted conduct meets the statutory definitions for each child in the case to insulate orders from appeal.
• Strategic considerations for counsel:
  • For respondents: If stipulating, narrowly frame admissions and ensure understanding of consequences; consider negotiated language that preserves opportunities for improvement periods but does not over-admit beyond necessity.
  • For DHS and GALs: Secure Rule 26(a)-compliant written stipulations that list both the factual basis for involvement and detailed deficiencies; this will support adjudication and future dispositional relief.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Adjudication vs. Disposition: Adjudication is the court’s determination of whether the child is abused or neglected and whether the respondent is an abusing or neglecting parent. Disposition is the remedial phase (improvement periods, custodial decisions, termination) that follows only after a proper adjudication.
• Jurisdictional Prerequisite: The court cannot proceed to disposition unless it first adjudicates the child as abused or neglected under statutory definitions based on conditions at the time of filing. The key is the presence of an explicit adjudicatory finding.
• Rule 26(a) Stipulation: A formal admission by a respondent that must include agreed facts supporting court involvement and a statement of the respondent’s problems/deficiencies to be addressed at disposition. A compliant stipulation can eliminate the need for the State to present further adjudicatory evidence.
• Abused vs. Neglected Child (general meaning): An “abused child” is one whose health or welfare is harmed or threatened by a caregiver’s acts or omissions (e.g., substance abuse impacting supervision). A “neglected child” is one deprived of necessary care, including when a caregiver’s impairment compromises supervision or the home’s safety.
• Improvement Period: A court-authorized timeframe during which a parent engages in services to remedy deficiencies (e.g., substance treatment, parenting classes). It does not negate prior adjudication; it is a dispositional tool to facilitate reunification if successful.
• Standard of Review: On appeal, factual findings are overturned only if clearly erroneous; legal conclusions are reviewed anew (de novo). This framework favors affirmance where the record demonstrates a Rule 26(a)-compliant stipulation and explicit adjudicatory findings.

Conclusion

In re K.M. and L.M. fortifies two principles in West Virginia child protection law. First, a Rule 26(a)-compliant stipulation that admits parenting impairment due to substance abuse and identifies deficiencies to be addressed is sufficient to adjudicate a parent without additional evidentiary proof—particularly when the children were in the parent’s custody when the petition was filed. Second, in such custody scenarios, a circuit court’s explicit finding that the children are abused and neglected satisfies the jurisdictional threshold to proceed to disposition; child-specific, granular findings of the type required in non-custody situations are unnecessary.

The decision harmonizes and distinguishes prior authorities (Z.S.-1, B.V., D.C., D.A., S.C., J.W.), emphasizing both the utility and consequence of stipulations and the centrality of custody context to the specificity required at adjudication. For practitioners, the message is clear: stipulations must be drafted with care; courts should make clear statutory findings; and where substance abuse is admitted to impair parenting, adjudication will be sustained to protect children.

Key Citations

• 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 S.C., 248 W. Va. 628, 889 S.E.2d 710 (2023)
• In re J.W., No. 23-712, 2025 WL 1262342 (W. Va. May 1, 2025) (mem. decision)
• In re D.C., No. 23-410, 2024 WL 4026060 (W. Va. Sept. 3, 2024) (mem. decision)
• In re D.A., No. 22-0151, 2022 WL 16549292 (W. Va. Oct. 31, 2022) (mem. decision)
• In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011)
• W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(i)
• W. Va. Code § 49-1-201