In re C.W., T.W., P.W., and L.W., 20-1032 and 21-0015

Background:

DHHR filed abuse-and-neglect petitions in Jan. 2019 against parents S.W. and T.W. alleging physical abuse of older child (C.W.), medical neglect of infant (T.W.), abandonment of P.W., and Father's alcohol abuse.
Forensic interviews of C.W. (including a recorded Jan. 2019 interview) disclosed repeated physical abuse and Father's drinking/drive behavior; those interviews were admitted at an early hearing.
Parents stipulated to medical neglect but denied physical abuse and alcohol abuse; multiple amended petitions and hearings followed from Nov. 2019 through 2020.
The circuit court delayed entry of adjudicatory and dispositional orders, repeatedly stating it needed to review the forensic interviews; many rulings were entered months after hearings, in violation of Rules 27 and 36.
On Nov. 19, 2020 the court announced adjudication on physical abuse and Father's alcohol abuse after reviewing the 2019 forensic interview, then immediately proceeded to disposition over the parents' objections and terminated parental rights by order entered Dec. 4, 2020.
The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the disposition order and remanded for a new disposition hearing, holding the court erred by conducting accelerated disposition without compliance with Rule 32.

Issues:

Issue	Petitioners' Argument	DHHR's Argument	Held
Whether circuit court erred by proceeding immediately to disposition after announcing adjudication on physical abuse and alcohol abuse	Immediate disposition was improper because Rule 32 requires agreement, case plan (or waiver), and notice; Petitioners did not agree and requested a later disposition hearing	Court relied on prior delays and urged finality; DHHR sought termination and argued immediate disposition was appropriate	Reversed: accelerated disposition was improper because Petitioners did not agree and Rule 32 prerequisites were not met; remanded for new disposition hearing
Whether procedural delays and late entry of adjudicatory/disposition orders violated the Rules (Rules 27 and 36)	Delays and failure to enter timely written findings/conclusions violated Rules and prejudice parties; court had a duty to resolve matters expeditiously	DHHR did not successfully justify the multiple delays; some delays were attributed to court review of long forensic interviews	Court criticized substantial procedural irregularities and Rule violations; although those delays alone were not the basis for reversal, they do not justify bypassing Rule 32 requirements
Whether the circuit court properly relied on forensic interviews and timing of review	Parents contended the court unreasonably delayed review and then used the interviews to adjudicate and immediately dispose without satisfying procedure	DHHR relied on the 2019 forensic interview to support adjudication and termination	Court found review of the 2019 interview supported adjudication but procedural shortcuts in disposition were impermissible; remedy is new disposition hearing

Key Cases Cited

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W. Va. 1996) (standard of review for circuit court findings in abuse-and-neglect bench trials)
In re Travis W., 206 W. Va. 478, 525 S.E.2d 669 (W. Va. 1999) (interpreting Rule 32: prerequisites for accelerated disposition)
In re Cecil T., 228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011) (reiterating standard of review for findings of fact in abuse-and-neglect cases)
In the Interest of Carlita B., 185 W. Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (W. Va. 1991) (child-abuse cases are high priority and must proceed expeditiously)
In re Edward B., 210 W. Va. 621, 558 S.E.2d 620 (W. Va. 2001) (disposition orders will be vacated when procedural rules for child cases are substantially disregarded)