Background
Petitioner Mother J.N. had a lengthy history with West Virginia child protective services, including two prior abuse and neglect petitions concerning her three older children. In November 2023, after she stopped participating in proceedings and failed to appear at a dispositional hearing, the circuit court terminated her parental rights to those children. At the time of that termination, she was pregnant with A.N. and had relocated to Ohio to live with S.N. — the father of A.N. and the subsequently born I.N. — and his family.
A.N. was born in January 2024 in Ohio and tested positive for drug exposure at birth; J.N. also tested positive for cocaine and buprenorphine. Ohio CPS opened a case and permitted the parents to retain custody only if they remained with the paternal grandparents. The parents instead moved back to West Virginia, and in July 2024 the West Virginia Department of Human Services filed an abuse and neglect petition as to A.N. In October 2024, J.N. admitted to the allegations and was adjudicated an abusing and neglecting parent. The circuit court then granted her a post-adjudicatory improvement period in January 2025, finding she was likely to participate fully.
In February 2025, J.N. gave birth to I.N. — a pregnancy she had concealed from the DHS, the guardian ad litem, and the circuit court throughout the improvement period. Two days after I.N.’s birth, DHS filed an amended petition as to I.N. and jointly sought with the guardian to rescind the improvement period. J.N. stipulated to the amended allegations. At dispositional hearings in May 2025, evidence showed that J.N. missed twenty-nine drug screens between December 2024 and May 2025, tested positive for cocaine in March 2025, purchased Suboxone without a prescription, and continued to consume alcohol with S.N. despite the prohibition. The circuit court terminated J.N.’s parental rights to both A.N. and I.N., finding no reasonable likelihood that she could substantially correct the conditions of abuse and neglect. J.N. appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals vacated the circuit court’s October 2024 adjudicatory order and the portion of the May 2025 dispositional order pertaining to A.N., holding that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over A.N. under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Because A.N. was born in Ohio and lived there until sometime between February and July 2024 — meaning she had not resided in West Virginia for six consecutive months before the July 10, 2024 petition — Ohio was A.N.’s “home state” under the UCCJEA. Because no Ohio court had declined to exercise jurisdiction, West Virginia could not establish “significant connection,” “declination,” or “default” jurisdiction as alternative bases. The court remanded with directions for the circuit court to contact the juvenile court in Mahoning County, Ohio to determine whether Ohio will decline jurisdiction; A.N. is to remain in her foster placement in the interim.
With respect to I.N., the court affirmed the termination of parental rights in full. The court found no error in the circuit court’s decision to terminate J.N.’s improvement period, reasoning that her concealment of the pregnancy demonstrated a failure to cooperate with DHS and an unwillingness to remedy the conditions of abuse. On the merits, the court held that the record amply supported the finding that there was no reasonable likelihood J.N. could substantially correct the conditions of neglect or abuse in the near future: despite some rehabilitative efforts, she continued to test positive for controlled substances, used unprescribed Suboxone, drank alcohol during the proceedings, and persistently refused to acknowledge the physical abuse she had inflicted on her older children — a failure the court characterized, per its precedent in In re Timber M., as rendering the underlying problem untreatable.
Justice Trump concurred in the vacation of the A.N. order on jurisdictional grounds but dissented as to the affirmance of the I.N. termination, arguing that neither the circuit court nor the majority identified any legal authority imposing on J.N. a duty to disclose her pregnancy, and that the characterization of that non-disclosure as a “fraud upon the court” was legally unsupported — particularly given that the court was itself acting without jurisdiction in the A.N. matter when the improvement period was in effect.
Key Takeaways
- Under the UCCJEA, West Virginia courts must analyze home-state jurisdiction before exercising authority in abuse and neglect proceedings; if another state is the child’s home state and has not declined jurisdiction, West Virginia lacks power to adjudicate — rendering any resulting orders a nullity.
- A parent’s concealment of a pregnancy during a court-ordered improvement period can constitute a failure to fully cooperate with DHS, justifying early termination of the improvement period under W. Va. Code § 49-4-610(7).
- Persistent refusal to acknowledge prior physical abuse prevents the problem from being treated and supports a finding that conditions of neglect or abuse cannot be substantially corrected in the near future, warranting termination of parental rights.
- Continued substance abuse — including positive cocaine screens and unprescribed drug use occurring just weeks before a dispositional hearing — can independently satisfy the statutory criteria for termination even where a parent demonstrates some rehabilitative effort.
Why It Matters
This decision underscores the mandatory and hierarchical nature of UCCJEA jurisdiction in child-custody proceedings, including abuse and neglect cases. Practitioners and courts must conduct a rigorous home-state analysis at the outset of any proceeding involving children with multi-state connections; failure to do so can invalidate months of proceedings and require de novo adjudication, with potentially serious consequences for children’s permanency.
The case also illustrates the evidentiary weight courts place on a parent’s lack of candor and failure to acknowledge abusive conduct. J.N.’s persistent denial of physical abuse she had already admitted in prior proceedings — combined with ongoing substance use — proved fatal to her parental rights as to I.N. notwithstanding her partial compliance with services. The partial dissent, however, raises a notable unresolved question: whether parents have any legal duty to disclose pregnancies to child welfare authorities or courts, and whether non-disclosure can properly be framed as fraud on the court absent explicit statutory or case-law authority.