“Significant-Connection Jurisdiction” and Incarceration-Based Neglect: Commentary on the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia’s Decision in In re L.H. (2025)

1. Introduction

In re L.H., No. 23-662, decided on 26 June 2025, addresses two recurring problems in abuse-and-neglect litigation:

1. Which state has authority to hear the case when a newborn is delivered outside the parents’ state of residence? (Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act—UCCJEA)
2. Whether an incarcerated biological parent, unknown to the child and unable to provide support, can be adjudicated a “neglecting parent.”

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (“SCAWV”) affirmed the Hampshire County Circuit Court’s order terminating the parental rights of A.R. (“Petitioner-Father”) to his son L.H. The case also involved the child’s mother, but the father alone appealed. Central facts include:

• Child born in Maryland hospital; mother a West Virginia resident; both tested positive for methamphetamine and other substances.
• Father incarcerated in Ohio since March 2021; paternity not confirmed until December 2022; he had no contact or support for the child.
• The circuit court never expressly conducted a UCCJEA analysis, yet proceeded to adjudication and termination.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Applying a de novo review for jurisdictional questions and clear-error review for factual findings, the SCAWV:

1. Held that West Virginia possessed “significant-connection jurisdiction” under W. Va. Code § 48-20-201(a)(2) because the mother and child had strong ties to West Virginia and substantial evidence relevant to the child’s welfare existed there.
2. Rejected “home state” jurisdiction for any state—reiterating that a neonatal hospital stay outside West Virginia does not establish a “home state.”
3. Affirmed the father’s adjudication for neglect based on his incarceration-related inability/refusal to provide necessities, relying heavily on the Court’s own syllabus in In re B.P. (2023).
4. Upheld termination of parental rights, finding no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect could be remedied in the near future.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

In re Z.H., 245 W. Va. 456 (2021)

• Established that a newborn’s hospital stay does not create “home state” jurisdiction.
• Provided the analytical template for moving from § 201(a)(1) to (a)(2) when no state qualifies as “home state.”
• L.H. adopts Z.H.’s reasoning nearly verbatim to deem both Maryland and West Virginia non-home states.

Rosen v. Rosen, 222 W. Va. 402 (2008)

• Confirmed that UCCJEA is purely jurisdictional; its requirements are not waivable.
• Court in L.H. cites Rosen to justify sua sponte review where the circuit court failed to analyze jurisdiction.

In re A.T.-1, 248 W. Va. 484 (2023)

• Articulated syllabus that the UCCJEA’s requirements “must be met” for power to adjudicate.
• Lays groundwork for appellate de novo review of unnoticed jurisdictional gaps.

In re K.R., 229 W. Va. 733 (2012)

• Emphasized that the four UCCJEA bases operate in descending priority.
• L.H. follows that ordered inquiry, moving from “home state” to “significant connection.”

In re B.P., 249 W. Va. 274 (2023)

• Syllabus Pt. 3: incarceration causing inability to provide necessities equals neglect.
• L.H. uses B.P. to dispose of the father’s argument that “failure to pay support” alone is not neglect; here the Court frames it as absence + inability to meet needs.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

a) UCCJEA Analysis

• No Home State: Neither Maryland (birth state) nor West Virginia qualifies. The Court reinforces that physical hospital presence is insufficient (Z.H.).
• Significant Connection: The mother’s residence, prenatal drug abuse, treatment history, and ongoing services in West Virginia create a substantial nexus. Evidence about father’s West Virginia criminal matters further tilts the scale.
• Substantial Evidence: Documents, witnesses, and services providers located in West Virginia satisfy § 201(a)(2)(ii).
• Priority Rule: Proceeding to “significant connection” only after excluding “home state” follows K.R..

b) Adjudication of Neglect

1. The statutory definition of “neglected child” (W. Va. Code § 49-1-201) lists absence of necessary food, clothing, shelter, etc.
2. The Court adopts B.P.’s rule that incarceration leading to inability to provide is neglect per se.
3. Father’s additional criminal conduct (trafficking Suboxone—a substance found in the newborn) aggravates the neglect finding.

c) Disposition—Termination

Satisfying § 49-4-604(c)(6), the Court agreed that: (i) no reasonable likelihood exists for remediation before father’s release (2025+), and (ii) permanency and adoption serve L.H.’s best interests.

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation

• Clarifies “Significant Connection” Factors: The decision emphasizes parental residence, locus of prenatal harm, and location of services as sufficient, even when the child has never physically resided in the state.
• Encourages Sua Sponte Jurisdictional Checks: Circuit courts are reminded—again—to conduct UCCJEA analysis early, or the Supreme Court will do it for them.
• Expands B.P. Application: Demonstrates that incarceration-based neglect may be found even where the parent only recently discovered paternity, neutralizing “I didn’t know I had a child” defenses.
• Cross-Border Births: Hospitals near state lines often serve out-of-state residents; this opinion gives West Virginia agencies confidence to retain jurisdiction where the factual center of gravity is in-state.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

UCCJEA

A uniform law adopted by almost every state defining which state’s courts may decide custody matters, to prevent competing orders.

Home State Jurisdiction

The state where the child has lived with a parent for six months immediately before the case begins (or since birth if younger than six months).

Significant Connection Jurisdiction

If no home state exists, another state may act if child and at least one parent have meaningful ties there and important evidence is located there.

Adjudication vs. Disposition

Adjudication decides whether abuse/neglect occurred; disposition decides what to do about it (services, termination, placement).

Termination of Parental Rights (TPR)

A permanent, court-ordered severance of the legal parent-child relationship, often preceding adoption.

5. Conclusion

In re L.H. fortifies two doctrinal pillars:

1. “Significant-connection jurisdiction” under the UCCJEA can—and will—anchor an abuse-and-neglect proceeding in West Virginia when no state qualifies as a “home state,” provided the parent-child nexus and available evidence point strongly toward West Virginia.
2. Consistent with In re B.P., incarceration that prevents a parent from meeting a child’s basic needs constitutes neglect, even when paternity is belatedly established.

The result is a clearer roadmap for trial courts straddling state lines and a stern reminder that jurisdictional diligence and the child’s best interests dominate parental claims when liberty is already curtailed by incarceration.