“No Home State, No Jurisdiction” – West Virginia Re-Affirms Mandatory UCCJEA Analysis in Abuse & Neglect Cases
Commentary on In re B.S.-S. and N.S., Supreme Court of West Virginia, July 30 2025

1. Introduction

In In re B.S.-S. and N.S., the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia disposed of a mother’s appeal from the termination of her parental rights by affirming the termination as to one child (B.S.-S.) while vacating all orders as to her other child (N.S.). The pivotal ground for the partial vacatur was the circuit court’s failure to carry out, on the record, the jurisdictional analysis demanded by the UCCJEA, coupled with the absence of any evidence that the out-of-state child met the statutory definition of an “abused” or “neglected” child under West Virginia law.

The decision simultaneously addresses ancillary issues—continuances, improvement periods, and statutory time limits—but its lasting significance lies in its unambiguous statement that a West Virginia court may not proceed in an abuse-and-neglect matter without first confirming one of the four UCCJEA jurisdictional bases, in priority order.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Jurisdictional Holding – Pennsylvania was N.S.’s “home state.” Because no Pennsylvania court declined jurisdiction, the West Virginia circuit court lacked authority under any UCCJEA category. Accordingly, the Court vacated the adjudicatory and dispositional orders insofar as they pertained to N.S.
• Substantive Holding (B.S.-S.) – The circuit court properly denied a continuance, refused a post-adjudicatory improvement period, and terminated the mother’s parental rights. These rulings were supported by the mother’s non-compliance, ongoing substance abuse, and failure to engage with services.
• Procedural Timing – Although statutory/rule time frames were exceeded, remand for new hearings would serve no purpose where clear and convincing evidence supported termination and the child’s best interests demanded permanency.
• Disposition – Orders affirmed as to B.S.-S.; vacated and remanded for further UCCJEA-compliant proceedings as to N.S.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Key Cases:
In re A.T.-1 (2023) – UCCJEA is jurisdictional.
In re Z.H. (2021) – Four bases of UCCJEA jurisdiction; priority hierarchy.
Rosen v. Rosen (2008) – Defined “home state” and “significant connection”; declination must be by a court, not an agency or individual.
In re B.V. (2023) – Child must fit statutory definition of abuse/neglect at petition filing.
Michael K.T. v. Tina L.T. (1989) – “Polar star” of best interests.
In re J.G., II (2018) – Mandatory time limits may not be casually enlarged.
In Interest of Carlita B. (1991) – Unjustified delay harms children.

These authorities formed twin pillars:

1. UCCJEA Pillar – The Court reiterated that jurisdiction must be decided in strict order: home state first, significant connection only if no home state jurisdiction, and so on. No declination in Pennsylvania meant steps (3) and (4) were unreachable.
2. Child-Protection Pillar – Even when procedural time frames are missed, substance trumps form if the record demonstrates clear and convincing evidence justifying termination in the child’s best interests.

3.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

3.2.1 UCCJEA Jurisdiction

The Court undertook its own subject-matter review (it may do so sua sponte) and determined:

• Under W. Va. Code § 48-20-201(a)(1), Pennsylvania was the home state because N.S. had lived there with his father for years.
• No evidence existed of a Pennsylvania court declining jurisdiction; therefore, West Virginia could not exercise “significant connection” jurisdiction under § 201(a)(2).
• Without steps (1) or (2), “declination” and “default” jurisdiction were unavailable.
• Additionally, the substantive definition of “abused” or “neglected” child was not satisfied: the mother had no contact with N.S., who was safe with his father under a protective order.

3.2.2 Continuance and Improvement Period

Applying abuse-of-discretion review, the Court found the mother’s request for delay was unsupported by “good cause.” Nearly a year had elapsed; her last-minute promise of treatment was insufficient to postpone the child’s permanency. Regarding a post-adjudicatory improvement period, West Virginia Code § 49-4-610 requires clear and convincing evidence that the parent is “likely to fully participate.” Her history—109 of 116 missed screens, missed psychological evaluations, refusal of visits—negated that showing.

3.2.3 Time-Frame Violations

Rules 25 and 32 set 30- and 45-day benchmarks for adjudicatory and dispositional hearings. The Court acknowledged breach but followed Tyler D. in holding that remand for the sake of deadlines alone, when termination is otherwise inevitable and beneficial, would only delay permanency, contravening the child’s best interests.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

1. UCCJEA Enforcement Strengthened
   Circuit courts must place UCCJEA analysis at the forefront of every abuse-and-neglect matter involving multi-state facts. Failure to do so risks partial—or total—vacatur on appeal.
2. Out-of-State Safety Recognized
   Even serious parental wrongdoing in West Virginia cannot bootstrap jurisdiction over a child living safely elsewhere; link between conduct and child harm is mandatory.
3. Procedural vs. Substantive Balance Clarified
   The Court re-affirmed that while time limits are mandatory, they are not an automatic ticket to reversal where the child’s welfare militates against re-starting the clock.
4. Guidance for Practitioners
   • Petitioners’ counsel must assemble facts establishing a basis under § 48-20-201.
   • DHHR/DHS should issue early UCCJEA memoranda.
   • Guardians ad litem should raise jurisdictional doubts promptly to avoid wasted proceedings.
   • Parents must present real, contemporaneous compliance evidence if they seek an improvement period.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

4.1 UCCJEA “Home State” Rule

Think of “home state” like the child’s legal mailing address for custody matters. If the child has lived in a state for six straight months (or since birth, if younger than six months), that state gets first dibs on court decisions about custody.

4.2 “Significant Connection” Jurisdiction

This is a backup. If no state qualifies as the “home,” a place where the child and at least one parent have meaningful ties and where substantial evidence is available may act—but only if the home state declines.

4.3 Improvement Periods

West Virginia’s abuse-and-neglect system gives parents a chance—called an “improvement period”—to correct problems. There are three varieties (pre-adjudicatory, post-adjudicatory, post-dispositional). To obtain one, the parent must convince the court they will “fully participate,” not merely promise to try.

4.4 Clear and Convincing Evidence

This evidentiary standard is higher than “preponderance” (more likely than not) but lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It requires the fact-finder to be firmly convinced of the truth of the allegations.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court of West Virginia’s memorandum decision in In re B.S.-S. and N.S. stands as a cautionary tale for courts and litigants alike. It confirms that:

• Subject-matter jurisdiction is a non-waivable, threshold question that cannot be glossed over—particularly under the UCCJEA.
• Where a child resides safely in another state, and that state has “home state” jurisdiction, West Virginia courts must either coordinate or defer—not assume.
• Parents seeking continuances or improvement periods must come with a persuasive record of engagement, not eleventh-hour assurances.
• Procedural missteps, while serious, may yield to the overarching imperative of a child’s best interests when a remand would only re-open irreparable wounds.

Ultimately, the decision fortifies the jurisdictional guardrails protecting interstate families and re-emphasises that expediency, evidence, and child welfare are the triad steering West Virginia’s abuse-and-neglect jurisprudence.