Vacatur Required Under WV Appellate Rule 21(d) for Absence of Parent-Specific Case Plan

Introduction

This commentary examines In re L.P., No. 24-74 (W. Va. Mar. 25, 2025), in which the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia vacated and remanded a dispositional order terminating a father’s parental rights for failure by the Department of Human Services (“DHS”) to file a case plan specific to him. The underlying petition arose from allegations that Father P.P. abused and neglected his child L.P., including a domestic‐violence incident witnessed by the child. The DHS filed a case plan for the mother but never prepared one for the father. The circuit court nevertheless terminated his rights. On appeal, the father challenged the omission, and the Supreme Court held that, under West Virginia Rule of Appellate Procedure 21(d) and statutory requirements, the absence of a separate case plan is reversible error even when a parent is non-compliant.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court reviewed the circuit court’s termination order de novo as to legal conclusions and for clear error as to findings of fact. It held that:

West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(a), § 49-4-408(a) & (b) require the DHS to file a written family case plan after a finding of abuse or neglect. Case plans must set out goals, services, timeframes, and criteria for measuring progress.
The DHS filed a case plan addressing only the mother, omitting any plan for the father despite his adjudication for abuse and neglect and despite statutory timelines.
West Virginia caselaw (In re K.L., 247 W.Va. 657, 885 S.E.2d 595 (2022); In re Desarae M., 214 W.Va. 657, 591 S.E.2d 215 (2003)) holds that “failure to prepare a family case plan … is reversible error,” even if the parent appears non-compliant.
Accordingly, under Rule 21(d) limited-circumstances authority, the Court vacated the dispositional order and remanded for the DHS to file a proper case plan for the father and for further proceedings consistent with all statutory and rule requirements.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re K.L. (2022): Reaffirmed that the absence of a family case plan is reversible error even where a parent is non-compliant. The Court emphasized that statutory process must be followed before termination.
In re Desarae M. (2003): Established that case plans must contain clear, measurable goals and services and that their omission undermines the statutory reunification process.
In re Emily G. (2009): Held that where rules or statutes are “substantially disregarded or frustrated,” the proper remedy is vacatur and remand for compliance.
In re Edward B. (2001): Recognized the principle that the procedural framework set by statute and rule cannot be bypassed, even in the face of compelling evidence of abuse.
In re Cecil T. (2011): Clarified standards of review for abuse and neglect appeals—clear error for factual findings; de novo for legal conclusions.

Legal Reasoning

The majority held that the statutory duty to prepare a case plan is never excused by a parent’s non-compliance. Such plans give structure to improvement periods and ensure that both courts and parents understand the expectations, services, and measurable benchmarks required for reunification. Without them, “assistants” (DHS workers, service providers, attorneys) lack guidance for formulating goals, methods, or measurable outcomes. The Court invoked Rule 21(d)’s “limited circumstances” authority to vacate and remand because the process was “substantially disregarded.”

The dissent (Armstead, J.) agreed that missing case plans ordinarily require reversal but argued that the father waived the objection by failing to object below and suffered no prejudice given his complete non-participation and history of extreme domestic violence. The majority countered that statutory requirements are mandatory and cannot be waived by inaction or forfeited by non-attendance.

Impact

This decision reinforces West Virginia’s commitment to procedural safeguards in child welfare proceedings. Practically, it means:

DHS must prepare individualized case plans for each parent or legal guardian found to have abused or neglected a child.
Circuit courts must refuse to proceed to dispositional hearings absent compliance with case-plan statutes.
Appellate courts will vacate termination orders when statutory or procedural requirements are “substantially disregarded,” safeguarding due process rights.

Over time, the ruling may slow some dispositional proceedings but will strengthen clarity, accountability, and consistency in planning for child safety and possible reunification.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Adjudicatory Hearing: Court hearing to determine whether abuse or neglect occurred.
Dispositional Hearing: Court hearing to decide what happens to the child after adjudication—e.g., services, foster care, termination.
Family Case Plan: Written plan outlining specific goals, services, timelines, and criteria for parents to rectify abuse/neglect conditions, required by WV Code.
Rule 21(d) “Limited Circumstances”: Appellate power to vacate and remand when statutory or procedural mandates have been substantially ignored.

Conclusion

In re L.P. cements the principle that compliance with statutory case-plan requirements is an indispensable prerequisite to terminating parental rights in West Virginia. Even where a parent is non-participative or has a history of violence, the DHS must prepare and file a separate plan setting forth goals, services, and benchmarks for that parent. Failure to do so compels vacatur under Rule 21(d) and remand for complete statutory compliance. This decision strengthens procedural protections for parents and children alike and underscores the indispensable role of clear, measurable case-planning in child welfare adjudications.