Strict Compliance with Procedural Requirements and Specific Findings in Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings

Introduction

In In re E.W., N.W., and R.W., the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia considered the appeal of C.W., who challenged the Mason County circuit court’s termination of his parental rights to three children (E.W., N.W., and R.W.). The proceedings below were initiated by the Department of Human Services (“DHS”) in May 2023, alleging the father’s prior termination of rights to another child, his failure to pay child support for N.W. and R.W., and his incarceration rendering him unable to care for all three children. At the heart of the appeal are three procedural irregularities: the reopening of adjudication, the holding of an accelerated dispositional hearing without proper notice or agreement, and the absence of the specific findings of fact required to adjudicate and terminate parental rights.

Summary of the Judgment

On May 6, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a memorandum decision vacating both the circuit court’s October 22, 2023 adjudicatory order and its November 2, 2023 dispositional order terminating C.W.’s parental rights. The Court found two primary errors:

The dispositional hearing was held in accelerated fashion in violation of Rule 32(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings, which requires (1) agreement of all parties, (2) proper notice or waiver, and (3) compliance with other procedural prerequisites.
The circuit court’s adjudicatory order failed to include separate, specific findings of fact as to how each child’s health or welfare was threatened—particularly E.W., who was under a legal guardianship at the time of filing—contravening the jurisdictional requirement established in In re B.V., 248 W. Va. 29, 886 S.E.2d 364 (2023).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated both orders and remanded for a properly noticed adjudicatory hearing and further proceedings in strict compliance with applicable rules and statutory mandates.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re B.V., 248 W. Va. 29, 886 S.E.2d 364 (2023): Mandates that circuit courts make child-specific factual findings to exercise subject‐matter jurisdiction in abuse and neglect cases, especially for children in legal guardianship.
In re C.S. and In re B.S., 247 W. Va. 212, 875 S.E.2d 350 (2022): Clarified that a child in legal guardianship requires a factual finding of abuse or neglect to confer jurisdiction.
In re Emily G., 224 W. Va. 390, 686 S.E.2d 41 (2009), and In re Edward B., 210 W. Va. 621, 558 S.E.2d 620 (2001): Established that substantial disregard of procedural rules warrants vacatur and remand.
In re Z.H., 245 W. Va. 456, 859 S.E.2d 399 (2021): Affirmed the Court’s authority to address jurisdictional defects sua sponte.
In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011): Standard for appellate review—findings of fact for clear error, conclusions of law de novo.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s decision rests on two pillars: procedural compliance and jurisdictional facts. First, the Court held that accelerated dispositional hearings under Rule 32(b) require (1) agreement of all parties to proceed immediately after adjudication, (2) proper notice or waiver, and (3) other statutory prerequisites. Here, the record showed no agreement by C.W., no notice of the dispositional hearing, and no waiver. As a result, the dispositional order terminating C.W.’s rights was procedurally infirm.

Second, the Court reaffirmed the jurisdictional imperative from In re B.V.: an adjudicatory order must detail how each child’s welfare is threatened by the respondent’s conduct. Generalized, conclusory findings are insufficient—particularly for E.W., who was in a lawful guardianship at filing. The circuit court’s blanket adjudication (“abusive and neglectful”) without child‐specific findings meant it never acquired jurisdiction to proceed to disposition.

Impact

This decision underscores the Supreme Court’s insistence on strict adherence to procedural rules in abuse and neglect cases. Child welfare proceedings—where fundamental parental rights are at stake—cannot shortcut notice requirements or forego detailed findings. Going forward:

Lower courts will ensure all accelerated dispositional hearings comply with Rule 32(b)’s tripartite requirement.
Adjudicatory orders must contain separate, child‐by‐child factual findings on abuse or neglect, with special attention to children under guardianship.
DHS petitions must accurately plead prior terminations, including bases for those terminations, to avoid jurisdictional defects.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 32(b) Accelerated Dispositional Hearing: A special rule allowing courts to move straight from “Is the parent abusing or neglecting?” (adjudication) to “Should we terminate rights?” (disposition) in one hearing—but only if everyone agrees and gets proper notice.

Specific Findings Requirement: Courts must explain, in writing, exactly how each child is harmed or at risk. You can’t simply say “the parent is bad” and lump all children together. The court needs to say, for example, “Child A is malnourished due to X,” “Child B is unsafe due to Y,” and so on.

Jurisdictional Defect: If the court doesn’t make those specific findings, it never truly had the power (jurisdiction) to decide the case—like trying to drive a car without turning the key first.

Conclusion

In re E.W., N.W., and R.W. reinforces that child abuse and neglect proceedings demand meticulous observance of procedural rules and clearly articulated, child‐specific findings. The Supreme Court’s vacatur and remand protect the due‐process rights of parents and ensure that decisions affecting family integrity rest on a solid factual and procedural foundation. On remand, the circuit court must conduct properly noticed hearings and issue detailed findings for each child before considering termination of parental rights.