889 S.E.2d 57
W. Va.2023Background:
- The family are Pennsylvania residents; alleged abuse/neglect occurred while the children were at a relative's home in West Virginia.
- Berkeley County DHHR filed an abuse-and-neglect petition in West Virginia and obtained emergency removal and temporary emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
- Parents admitted the substantive allegations at an adjudicatory hearing on November 9, 2021, and the court found aggravated circumstances and set the case for disposition.
- The court contacted Pennsylvania about jurisdiction after the November hearing; Pennsylvania later declined jurisdiction. The adjudicatory order was entered January 7, 2022, and a dispositional order terminating parental rights was entered April 18, 2022.
- Parents appealed, arguing West Virginia lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because the circuit court adjudicated the case before the home state (Pennsylvania) declined jurisdiction.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WV had subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate abuse/neglect when the court conducted an adjudicatory hearing before the home state declined jurisdiction under the UCCJEA | Parents: adjudication occurred while WV only had temporary emergency jurisdiction; court lacked authority to adjudicate before PA declined, so orders are void | DHHR/GAL: declination jurisdiction existed by the time the written adjudicatory order was entered; any defect was cured and should not require vacatur | Court: Temporary emergency jurisdiction is narrow and does not permit adjudication on the merits; because the court adjudicated before PA declined, those rulings were void. The termination order is vacated and remanded; the circuit court must contact PA and, if PA declines, hold de novo adjudicatory and dispositional hearings. |
| Whether termination of parental rights as to child B.T.-1 (desiring reunification) should be upheld | Parents & GAL: termination improper given B.T.-1's express wishes and failure to address those interests | DHHR: aggravated circumstances justified termination; services not required; termination appropriate | Court did not resolve merits because dispositional order vacated for lack of jurisdiction; merits to be considered in any de novo hearings if PA declines jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223 (W. Va. 1996) (standard of review for bench findings in abuse-and-neglect matters)
- Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W. Va. 138 (W. Va. 1995) (legal questions and statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Rosen v. Rosen, 222 W. Va. 402 (W. Va. 2008) (UCCJEA is jurisdictional; parties cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction)
- In re Z.H., 245 W. Va. 456 (W. Va. 2021) (courts must address UCCJEA jurisdiction sua sponte and cannot proceed without proper basis)
- In re J.C., 242 W. Va. 165 (W. Va. 2019) (home-state declination required before WV may adjudicate child custody in interstate cases)
- In re K.R., 229 W. Va. 733 (W. Va. 2012) (summarizing UCCJEA jurisdictional priorities)