Background
The West Virginia Department of Human Services filed a Sixth Amended Petition alleging that Mother T.M. and Stepfather M.M. abused and neglected two children, S.H. and F.B., stemming from a May 10, 2023 altercation in which Mother physically confronted teenager S.H. in the family home while the younger child F.B. was present. The case had a lengthy history including prior abuse and neglect petitions, a completed improvement period, and more than two years of proceedings before the adjudicatory hearings took place. Both children were removed from the home.
The circuit court held two adjudicatory hearings in July and August 2024 at which it received testimony from eyewitnesses, the investigating CPS worker, and the responding police officer, and admitted into evidence two cell phone videos of the altercation and three forensic interviews of the children. After the hearings, the circuit court entered an October 15, 2024 adjudicatory order summarily finding that the evidence did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the children were abused or neglected, and dismissed the petition. The court’s only specific factual finding was that the video, “while concerning,” did not clearly and convincingly establish the allegations.
A supplemental order entered October 28, 2024, following a motions hearing, acknowledged “significant evidence for and against the respondent parents” and found the police officer’s testimony credible, but made no credibility determinations as to other conflicting witnesses and did not analyze the competing evidence. The guardian ad litem (GAL) for F.B. appealed, arguing both that clear and convincing evidence compelled an abuse finding and, in the alternative, that the orders were legally insufficient for appellate review.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia vacated both the October 15 adjudicatory order and the October 28 supplemental order as they pertained to F.B., and remanded for expeditious entry of a new adjudicatory order containing proper findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court declined to reach the merits of whether clear and convincing evidence did or did not support an abuse finding, holding instead that the circuit court’s failure to make required findings prevented meaningful appellate review.
The court grounded its ruling in West Virginia Code § 49-4-601(i) and Rule 27 of the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings, both of which expressly mandate that the circuit court make written findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the child is abused or neglected at the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing. The court found these requirements were not optional and that the circuit court had made no attempt to address the factual discrepancies between witness accounts or to make credibility determinations regarding the conflicting testimony — a task that cannot be performed on appeal.
Applying the principle from In re Edward B., 210 W. Va. 621, 558 S.E.2d 620 (2001), the court held that where the process established by the Rules and related statutes has been substantially disregarded or frustrated, the resulting order must be vacated and the case remanded. The court directed the circuit court to proceed expeditiously given that F.B. had already been out of the home for well over 500 days.
Key Takeaways
- West Virginia Code § 49-4-601(i) and Rule 27 of the abuse and neglect procedural rules impose a mandatory duty on circuit courts to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether a child is abused or neglected — a bare conclusion that the burden of proof was not met is legally insufficient.
- When a circuit court acknowledges “significant evidence for and against” the respondent parents but fails to evaluate or reconcile that conflicting evidence, the resulting order cannot sustain appellate review; credibility determinations and fact-weighing are exclusively the trial court’s function and cannot be performed by an appellate court on a cold record.
- Inadequate findings in an adjudicatory order — not just a dispositional order — constitute substantial disregard of the mandatory statutory and rule-based process, warranting vacatur under the In re Edward B. standard.
- A court’s recognition that reunification is a goal and its entry of a transitional reunification plan does not cure the failure to comply with mandatory adjudicatory requirements.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that West Virginia circuit courts must do more than announce a bottom-line conclusion in abuse and neglect adjudications. When the evidence is contested — as it often is in these cases — the court must engage with that conflict: evaluating witness credibility, identifying which facts it credits, and explaining how those facts support or undermine the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard. A ruling that acknowledges competing evidence without analyzing it is not a legal finding; it is a gap that makes meaningful review impossible.
For practitioners, the case underscores the importance of building a complete record and promptly challenging adjudicatory orders that lack the factual specificity the statute demands. For circuit courts, it is a reminder that the procedural requirements of West Virginia Code § 49-4-601(i) and Rule 27 are not mere formalities — they are structural protections for both children and parents, and omitting them will result in vacatur and delay that itself harms the children at the center of these proceedings.