In Re: Lilith H., Wyllow H. & Natalie H.
231 W. Va. 170
| W. Va. | 2013Background
- Altercation on Aug 6, 2011 between Matthew H. and Randy B. witnessed by Lilith H., Wyllow H., and Natalie H.; DHHR filed abuse/neglect petition alleging imminent danger and unaddressed home conditions.
- Adjudication hearing (Sept 1, 2011) found the children abused/neglected based on domestic violence in front of them; petition sought removal and assessments.
- Disposition after adjudication granted six hours/week supervised visits and ordered improvement period, with various services.
- DHHR later sought to amend petition to include home/child-condition allegations observed post-adjudication; guardian sought post-adjudication amendment.
- Trial court failed to amend properly and relied on unrelated parental dispute (April B. vs. Matthew H.) to support termination, which this Court later found improper.
- Court reversed the adjudication and disposition as to both parents, remanding for petition amendment and further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adjudication rested on a single altercation | Matthew H. and April B. contend the incident was isolated self-defense/bystander witnessing. | DHHR argues the altercation constitutes abuse/neglect under domestic violence provisions. | Adjudication based on the incident was clearly erroneous. |
| Whether post-adjudication amendments were properly allowed | Amendments should follow Rule 19; petition should address newly discovered issues. | Court could forego amendment post-adjudication or limit scope. | Post-adjudication amendments were improperly handled; remand for amendments and proper adjudication. |
| Whether disposition findings were adequate and aligned with petition | Dispositional terms relied on unadjudicated issues and improper premises. | Dispositional order should reflect best interests and statutory findings. | Disposition was deficient; remand for proper findings and congruent proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tiffany Marie S., 196 W. Va. 223 (1996) (clear standard for reviewing abuse/neglect findings; de novo on law, clear error on facts)
- In re Betty J.W., 179 W. Va. 605 (1988) (abuse definition includes parent’s knowledge of abuse by another)
- In re Willis, 157 W. Va. 225 (1973) (parental custody rights are fundamental and due process protected)
- In re Katie S., 198 W. Va. 79 (1996) (health and welfare of children paramount in abuse/neglect cases)
- In re Edward B., 210 W. Va. 621 (2001) (need for explicit factual findings and statutory findings in termination orders)
- In re Randy H., 220 W. Va. 122 (2006) (court has authority to compel amendments to petition when new abuse/neglect evidence arises)
- Julie G., 201 W. Va. 764 (1997) (concerns about adjudication based on unalleged but relevant evidence; dissent cited for caution)