
    IN RE A.P.-1, A.P.-2, A.P.-3
    No. 18-0448
    Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
    Submitted: January 15, 2019 Filed: March 14, 2019 Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Justice Workman April 12, 2019
    Gavin Ward, Esq., Beckley, West Virginia, Counsel for Petitioner D.P.
    Stanley I. Selden, Esq., Beckley, West Virginia, Guardian ad litem of A.P.-1, A.P.-2, and A.P.-3
    Patrick Morrissey, Esq., Attorney General, Brandolyn N. Felton-Ernest, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for Respondent Department of Health and Human Resources
    Sidney Bell, Esq., Beckley, West Virginia, Counsel for Respondent J.B.
    Sarah F. Smith, Esq., Public Defender Corporation, Beckley, West Virginia, Counsel for Respondent T.W.
   WALKER, Chief Justice:

Petitioner D.P. is serving a lengthy prison sentence for first-degree murder and is ineligible for parole until 2029. He is also father to three minor children: A.P.-1, A.P.-2, and A.P.-3. In April 2018, the Circuit Court of Raleigh County terminated Petitioner's parental rights to the three children, despite concluding three months earlier that Petitioner had not abused or neglected them. Petitioner now challenges the termination of his parental rights. Because our law is clear that a circuit court may not terminate a parent's rights to his child without first finding that the parent abused or neglected his child, we vacate the circuit court's April 2018 order and remand this matter to the circuit court for further proceedings.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 12, 2017, the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed a "Petition for Finding of Abuse and/or Neglect and/or Abandonment" with the Circuit Court of Raleigh County (the Petition) regarding Petitioner's three minor children: A.P.-1, A.P.-2, A.P.-3. In the Petition, DHHR alleged that Petitioner was incarcerated at Mount Olive Correctional Facility, sentenced to life with mercy, and ineligible for parole until 2029. DHHR asked the circuit court to find that Petitioner had abandoned his children and, based upon that finding, terminate his parental rights to A.P.-1, A.P.-2, and A.P.-3. DHHR did not allege that Petitioner had otherwise neglected or abused the children.

The circuit court held an adjudicatory hearing on October 3, 2017. There, DHHR argued that Petitioner had abandoned his children due to his lengthy incarceration. The circuit court was not convinced, and stated in its October 6, 2017 order that it "was of the opinion that the Department's interpretation of the definition of abandonment was not correct." The circuit court then ordered the guardian ad litem and Petitioner to provide additional authority on that issue.

The adjudication hearing continued on December 12, 2017. Petitioner testified to his ongoing relationship with A.P.-1, A.P.-2, and A.P.-3, stating that he was with them nearly every day before his incarceration in March 2014, and that he had provided for their physical and emotional needs. Petitioner further testified that, since entering prison, he talked to the children by telephone at least twice each week and sent his prison wages to his sister E.P., with whom the children were placed, for their maintenance.

The circuit court again continued the adjudication hearing to January 30, 2018, when the children's mother, T.W., testified and confirmed Petitioner's earlier statements: that he provided emotional and financial support to his children before his 2014 incarceration and that he remained involved in the children's lives through telephone conversations and cards, post-incarceration. Petitioner's sister, E.P., also confirmed that he maintained meaningful contact with A.P.-1, A.P.-2, and A.P.-3 from prison and supported them financially, to the best of his ability. Following argument from the parties, and the State's concession that there was no "factual basis in good faith for the Court to make any finding of abandonment," the circuit court concluded that the facts did not support a finding that Petitioner had abandoned A.P.-1, A.P.-2, and A.P.-3 and adjudication was "not supported and [was] refused."

The circuit court then held a disposition hearing on April 17, 2018. Petitioner's counsel "object[ed] to any type of termination on the record considering that there's been no finding of abuse and neglect," and directed the circuit court to this Court's decision in State v. T.C . The guardian ad litem for A.P.-1, A.P.-2, and A.P.-3 presented the opposite view, stating, "[t]he law does not say that because there was no finding of abuse, neglect, or abandonment at the adjudicatory phase that [Petitioner's] parental rights can't be terminated at a dispositional phase. It's exactly the opposite of that." Then, the guardian ad litem drew upon this Court's decision in In re Cecil T . to assure the circuit court that it could "terminate [Petitioner's] parental rights at a dispositional hearing solely on the basis of him being incarcerated[.]"

Ultimately, the circuit court adopted the guardian ad litem's view, concluding that, although it explicitly found that Petitioner had not abandoned his children at the earlier adjudicatory hearing, it was not precluded from "considering the circumstances of the parties and devising a-or coming to a resolution of the question of disposition in the best interests of the child, or the children." Relying on In re Cecil T. , the court found that "the lengthy incarceration of [D.P.] does support the finding of termination to allow the Department the options to take care of [A.P.-1, A.P.-2, and A.P.-3]." The court's written order, entered on April 24, 2018, reflected that termination ruling:

[T]hat [D.P.] has a lengthy prison sentence which includes his ineligibility for parole until March 16, 2029; that the opportunity for contact with his children is clearly limited; that the children's interests control at disposition; that while the Court recognizes [D.P.'s] interests the same are outweighed by the children's interests; In Re: Cecil T [.], ... controls this matter; and that the children's best interests require termination of [D.P.'s] parental rights.

Petitioner now appeals the circuit court's April 24, 2018 order terminating his parental rights.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In abuse and neglect appeals, this Court reviews a circuit court's conclusions of law de novo. "Interpreting a statute or an administrative rule or regulation presents a purely legal question subject to de novo review." This Court only sets aside a circuit court's factual findings in an abuse and neglect case when those findings are clearly erroneous and not because this Court would have decided the case differently:

A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support the finding, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. However, a reviewing court may not overturn a finding simply because it would have decided the case differently, and it must affirm a finding if the circuit court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.[ ]

III. DISCUSSION

Petitioner raises three assignments of error. We consolidate the first two because they are duplicative. They are also dispositive of this appeal; thus, we need not address the third. Petitioner contends that the circuit court erroneously terminated his parental rights at the April 17, 2018 disposition hearing because it did not find, at the earlier adjudicatory hearing, that he had abused, neglected, or abandoned A.P.-1, A.P.-2, or A.P.-3. Stated differently, Petitioner argues that the circuit court improperly moved forward to the disposition phase of the abuse and neglect proceeding without first making the prerequisite finding that he had, in fact, abused, neglected, or abandoned his children.

DHHR argues that a finding of abuse, neglect, or abandonment at an adjudicatory hearing is not a prerequisite to disposition. Alternatively, DHHR argues that, although the circuit court did not adjudicate Petitioner as an abusive or neglectful parent, or one who had abandoned his children, it did find that Petitioner had abandoned his children at the disposition hearing and that the children's interest in permanency outweighed Petitioner's interest in retaining his parental rights. The guardian ad litem adopts the position of DHHR on appeal. He also renews his argument that our decision, In Re Cecil T. , justifies the termination of Petitioner's parental rights at the April 17, 2018 disposition hearing and that the circuit court properly weighed A.P.-1, A.P.-2, and A.P.-3's interests in permanency. We address these arguments in turn, below.

A.

In November 2018, during the pendency of this appeal, this Court decided In re K.H. There, the petitioner-father raised the same issue on appeal that Petitioner now raises: that the "circuit court erroneously terminated his parental rights at a disposition hearing after previously declining to adjudicate him as an abusive or neglectful parent on the same grounds ." Because the primary issues in the two cases are identical, we expressly adopt and elaborate upon the reasoning employed in In re K.H. to resolve Petitioner's appeal.

As we did in In re K.H. , we begin our analysis with West Virginia Code §§ 49-4-601 and 49-4-604 (2015). Section 49-4-601 controls adjudicatory hearings, which are hearings "to determine whether a child has been abused and/or neglected as alleged in [DHHR's] petition[.]" Section 49-4-604 controls disposition hearings, which are hearings

held after a child has been adjudged to be abused and/or neglected, at which the court reviews the child and family case plan filed by [DHHR] and determines the appropriate disposition of the case and permanency plan for the family.[ ]

The adjudicatory hearing required by § 49-4-601 and the disposition hearing required by § 49-4-604 create a "two-stage process [that] is well-recognized in our case law." As we have explained, each stage has a separate purpose:

The first phase culminates in an adjudication of abuse and/or neglect. [See section 49-4-601 ]. The second phase is a dispositional one, undertaken to achieve the appropriate permanent placement of a child adjudged to be abused and/or neglected. [See section 49-4-604 ].[ ]

The adjectives "first" and "second" are not to be glossed over. As this Court stated in 1983,

[i]n a child abuse and neglect hearing, before a court can begin to make any of the dispositional alternatives under [ § 49-4-604 ], it must hold a hearing under [ § 49-4-601 ], and determine "whether such child is abused or neglected."Such a finding is a prerequisite to further continuation of the case .[ ]

So, if a circuit court answers the initial, adjudicatory question in the negative, "then the petition is dismissed under W.Va.Code, 49-6-5(a)(1) [recodified at W. Va. Code § 49-4-604(b)(1) ]" and the court may not proceed to consider the disposition options laid out in § 49-4-604(b)(2)-(6). Stated even more plainly, our statutes, cases, and rules instruct that a circuit court may not terminate parental rights at a § 49-4-604 disposition hearing without first finding that the parent abused or neglected the child in question at a § 49-4-601 adjudicatory hearing.

As we recognized in State v. T.C. and restated more recently in In Re K.H. , jurisdictional and constitutional concerns mandate this two-phase approach:

[T]he primary purpose of making an initial finding of abuse or neglect is to protect the interest of all parties and to justify the continued jurisdiction of the court.
The two-stage process supports the constitutional protections afforded to parents in permanent child removal cases-constitutional rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, with regard to minor children, no rule is more firmly established than that the right of a natural parent to the custody of his or her infant child is paramount to that of any other person; it is a fundamental personal liberty protected and guaranteed by the Due Process Clauses of the West Virginia and United States Constitutions.[ ]

Just as in In re K.H. , the circuit court in this matter held an adjudicatory hearing on DHHR's allegation that Petitioner had abandoned A.P.-1, A.P.-2, and A.P.-3. And, as in In re K.H. , the circuit court considered the evidence presented and found that Petitioner had not. As a result, the circuit court lacked the continued jurisdiction to then terminate Petitioner's parental rights at the April 17, 2018 disposition hearing. So, we vacate that portion of the circuit court's order of April 24, 2018 purporting to terminate Petitioner's parental rights to A.P.-1, A.P.-2, and A.P.-3.

B.

DHHR's position-that a finding of abuse and neglect at an adjudicatory hearing is not a prerequisite to disposition-is untenable under the plain language of West Virginia Code §§ 49-4-601 and 49-4-604, as well as Syllabus Point 1 of our decision in State v. T.C. , decided more than thirty-five years ago. Similarly, the department's position that the circuit court somehow "carried over" the evidence offered at the adjudicatory hearing to the disposition hearing, and then lawfully adjudged Petitioner to have abandoned A.P.-1, A.P.-2, and A.P.-3. before terminating his parental rights is similarly unavailing.

The circuit court and guardian ad litem's reliance upon In re Cecil T. in support of the termination of Petitioner's parental rights requires more consideration. In In re Cecil T. , this Court considered the termination of parental rights when incarceration was the only factor or circumstance raised in support of termination at the disposition hearing. We made clear that the circuit court adjudged Cecil T. to be a neglected child before denying DHHR's motion to terminate his father's parental rights. DHHR then appealed the circuit court's disposition decision, not its adjudicatory one, to this Court. That distinction is vital, and it is reflected in Syllabus Point 3 of In re Cecil T . :

When no factors and circumstances other than incarceration are raised at a disposition hearing in a child abuse and neglect proceeding with regard to a parent's ability to remedy the condition of abuse and neglect in the near future, the circuit court shall evaluate whether the best interests of a child are served by terminating the rights of the biological parent in light of the evidence before it. This would necessarily include but not be limited to consideration of the nature of the offense for which the parent is incarcerated, the terms of the confinement, and the length of the incarceration in light of the abused or neglected child's best interests and paramount need for permanency, security, stability and continuity.[ ]

On its face, Syllabus Point 3 of In re Cecil T . applies only in the context of a lawful disposition hearing held after a circuit court makes a finding of abuse or neglect at the adjudicatory hearing. Here, the circuit court lacked the continued jurisdiction to conduct a disposition hearing once it declined to adjudge Petitioner as having abandoned A.P.-1, A.P.-2, and A.P.-3. For that reason, In re Cecil T. could not have applied to Petitioner's case, below, nor could it have justified the termination of Petitioner's parental rights.

We acknowledge the desire of the circuit court, guardian ad litem, and DHHR to achieve permanency for A.P.-1, A.P.-2, and A.P.-3. However, as we explained in In re K.H. , that desire may not be fulfilled "by terminating the parental rights of a person who was never adjudicated as abusive or neglectful" and thereby ignoring "well-settled law." Certainly, the parties could have traveled an alternate, procedural route. DHHR could have amended its original abuse and neglect petition to include new allegations that arose following the initial adjudication hearing, if warranted, and the circuit court could have then held another adjudicatory hearing. Had the circuit court then found, for example, A.P.-1, A.P.-2, and A.P.-3 to be neglected children, as that term is defined by West Virginia Code § 49-1-201 (2015), it then would have had the jurisdiction to entertain the disposition of Petitioner's parental rights under § 49-4-604. Our insistence on procedural integrity in abuse and neglect cases is not hollow formality. Our statutes, cases, and rules mandate a two-phase approach in abuse and neglect proceedings to "support[ ] the constitutional protections afforded to parents in permanent child removal cases." Petitioner, although incarcerated, is entitled to no less.

Conclusion

The circuit court erred by terminating Petitioner's parental rights to A.P.-1, A.P.-2, and A.P.-3 without first adjudicating him as an abusive or neglectful parent. Accordingly, the circuit court lacked the jurisdiction to enter those portions of its April 24, 2018 order purporting to terminate Petitioner's parental rights. For that reason, we hereby vacate the portion of the circuit court's April 24, 2018 order purporting to terminate Petitioner's parental rights to A.P.-1, A.P.-2, and A.P.-3.

We remand the case to the circuit court with instructions to permit DHHR to file an amended abuse and neglect petition, if warranted, alleging any and all claims that it may have against the Petitioner. Then, if necessary, the circuit court shall expeditiously hold an adjudicatory hearing on the newly amended petition and, if the Petitioner is adjudicated as an abusive or neglectful parent, shall hold a disposition hearing. Unless the circuit court finds reasons indicating that a change in custody is appropriate, A.P.-1 and A.P.-2 should remain in E.P.'s care pending the outcome of the case. If DHHR does file an amended petition, we then instruct the circuit court to make E.P. a party to the newly amended petition and to appoint her counsel.

Finally, we direct the circuit court to require DHHR to attempt to identify A.P-3's biological father and to take appropriate action given the outcome of those inquiries. Unless the circuit court finds reasons indicating that a change in custody is appropriate, A.P.-3 should remain in E.P.'s care pending the outcome of the DHHR's inquiries.

Vacated and remanded with directions.

JUSTICE WORKMAN concurs, in part, and dissents, in part, and reserves the right to file a separate opinion.

WORKMAN, Justice, concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part:

(Filed April 12, 2019)

I concur with the majority that the adjudication and disposition determinations should have been made in separate hearings under the procedural status of this case and a very limited remand for a dispositional hearing is appropriate. I vehemently disagree, however, with several other points of the majority opinion which will be set forth in summary form and then discussed at length in this opinion.

First, the majority erred in holding that the lower court lacked continuing jurisdiction in this case once the circuit court initially declined to adjudicate the petitioner father as having abandoned the children. Further, in not permitting the existing proceedings to continue on remand, and instead offering the Department of Health and Human Resources ("DHHR") the option of filing a new petition, the majority has essentially created the potential of the children never having a permanent placement.

Second, the majority missed an opportunity to clarify that long-term incarceration is a form of neglect, when the applicable statutes are read in pari materia, as the law requires.

Third, the majority opinion leaves total confusion on whether incarceration can be considered at both the adjudicatory and dispositional stages by including language both in the body of the opinion and in a footnote that are inconsistent on their face. Clearly, both under the law and in the realm of basic common sense, the factors relating to incarceration as enunciated in In Re Cecil T. , 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011), are a valid consideration in and can support a finding at either stage when the applicable criteria are met.

I. Discussion

Incarceration as a Form of Neglect

From the perspective of overall abuse and neglect law, the most significant problem with the majority opinion is the missed opportunity to clarify that abandonment engendered by long-term incarceration can be a form of neglect, when the statutory definitions of each concept are considered in pari materia, as required by law.

The abandonment of a child is defined as "any conduct that demonstrates the settled purpose to forego the duties and parental responsibilities to the child." W.Va. Code § 49-1-201 (2015 & Supp. 2018). A "neglected child" is defined, in pertinent part, as a child,

[w]hose physical or mental health is harmed or threatened by a present refusal, failure or inability of the child's parent, guardian, or custodian to supply the child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, supervision, medical care, or education, when that refusal, failure, or inability is not due primarily to a lack of financial means on the part of the parent, guardian, or custodian[.]

Id. These statutory definitions of abandonment and neglect are part of a body of legislation that was enacted to protect the welfare of children. To that end, it is essential to remember that "effect must be given to each part of the statute and to the statute as a whole so as to accomplish the general purpose of the legislation." Syl. Pt. 2, in part, Smith v. State Workmen's Comp. Comm'r, 159 W.Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975).

In giving each of these statutory definitions effect so as to accomplish the critically important legislative purpose of protecting the welfare of children, one is led to the inescapable conclusion that an incarcerated parent can be adjudicated as having abandoned his or her child[ren] through evidence of the parent's inability to meet even the most minimal parental duties and responsibilities to the child[ren]. Moreover, it is clear that the statutory definition of neglect encompasses not only abandonment, as defined by statute, but also incarceration, so long as the factors surrounding that incarceration demonstrate that the parent is unable to provide the basic needs of his child[ren] as described in the neglect definition.

In the case at bar, DHHR filed a petition against the petitioner which made broad allegations of "Abuse and/or Neglect and/or Abandonment." Nonetheless, it is apparent that the circuit court considered the statutory definition of abandonment in isolation during the initial adjudicatory phase without also considering and giving effect to the statutory definition of neglect. W.Va. Code § 49-1-201 ; see also Smith, 159 W.Va. at 109, 219 S.E.2d at 362, syl. pt. 2, in part. Because the petitioner presented evidence that showed his continued interest in his children following his incarceration, the circuit court declined to find that he had abandoned his children. It was, however, abundantly clear that the petitioner cannot possibly provide the children with their most basic daily needs during the next minimum 10-11 years incarceration. Consequently, he has effectively abandoned them under the neglect statute. W.Va. Code § 49-1-201. This was an error that the lower court later recognized and attempted to correct during the disposition hearing, where no new evidence was presented. The guardian ad litem simply advocated for the best interests of the children during that hearing in light of the petitioner's lengthy incarceration and the factors set forth in syllabus point three of In Re Cecil T. :

When no factors and circumstances other than incarceration are raised at a disposition hearing in a child abuse and neglect proceeding with regard to a parent's ability to remedy the condition of abuse and neglect in the near future, the circuit court shall evaluate whether the best interests of a child are served by terminating the rights of the biological parent in light of the evidence before it. This would necessarily include but not be limited to consideration of the nature of the offense for which the parent is incarcerated, the terms of the confinement, and the length of the incarceration in light of the abused or neglected child's best interests and paramount need for permanency, security, stability and continuity.

228 W.Va. at 91, 717 S.E.2d at 875 (emphasis added).

Unquestionably, a parent whose term of incarceration is so lengthy that his children will be almost grown before the father is released from prison is a critical consideration under the statutory definition of neglect and is a permissible consideration under In re Cecil T. . Another consideration under In re Cecil T. is the nature of the offense. Here the petitioner committed murder, not a garden-variety, nonviolent crime, obviously without considering the impact of his criminal conduct on his children. His actions alone resulted in his lengthy term of incarceration, which will preclude him from meeting even his minimal parenting responsibilities.

In short, the Cecil T. factors, along with the statutory definitions for "abandonment" and "neglect" in West Virginia Code § 49-1-201, are all unquestioningly relevant to determining whether the Department has established that the parent is abusing or neglecting, as required by West Virginia Code § 49-4-601(I). Importantly, "[s]tatutes in pari materia must be construed together and the legislative intention, as gathered from the whole of the enactments, must be given effect." Syl. Pt. 3, State ex rel. Graney v. Sims , 144 W.Va. 72, 105 S.E.2d 886 (1958) ; accord Syl. Pt. 2, in part, Beckley v. Kirk , 193 W.Va. 258, 455 S.E.2d 817 (1995) (same); Syl. Pt. 5, in part, Fruehauf Corp. v. Huntington Moving & Storage Co. , 159 W.Va. 14, 217 S.E.2d 907 (1975) ("Statutes which relate to the same persons or things, or to the same class of persons or things, or statutes which have a common purpose will be regarded in pari materia to assure recognition and implementation of the legislative intent.").

Although "[a] natural parent of an infant child does not forfeit his or her parental right to the custody of the child merely by reason of having been convicted of one or more charges of criminal offenses[,]" syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Acton v. Flowers , 154 W.Va. 209, 174 S.E.2d 742 (1970), the majority should have clarified that a parent's incarceration, particularly a lengthy one, results in the child[ren] being neglected by that parent.

Thus, even when an incarcerated parent's conduct reflects a continued interest in his or her children, the statutory definitions of abandonment and neglect must be considered together and under the circumstances of this case can result in an adjudication and/or disposition of abandonment/neglect and termination of parental rights. Smith, 159 W.Va. at 109, 219 S.E.2d at 362, syl. pt. 2, in part; Graney, 144 W.Va. at 72, 105 S.E.2d at 887, syl. pt. 3.

Ajudication v. Disposition

The majority further confuses the issue by making inconsistent statements regarding whether the In re Cecil T. factors can be considered on both the adjudication and disposition stages, or only at disposition. The opinion holds that:

On its face, Syllabus Point 3 of In re Cecil T. applies only in the context of a lawful disposition hearing held after a circuit court makes a finding of abuse or neglect at the adjudicatory hearing. Here, the circuit court lacked the continued jurisdiction to conduct a disposition hearing once it declined to adjudge Petitioner as having abandoned A.P.-1, A.P.-2, and A.P.-3. For that reason, In re Cecil T . could not have applied to Petitioner's case, below, nor could it have justified the termination of Petitioner's parental rights.

But the majority's accompanying footnote 29 makes a completely inconsistent (although I believe correct) statement of law to the effect that this blatant inconsistency leaves the law muddled up on this important issue:

Circuit courts should be mindful that In re Cecil T. does not foreclose a finding at the adjudicatory stage that a parent's absence due to incarceration that harms or threatens the physical or mental health of the child is neglect. See W.Va. Code § 49-1-21 (defining "neglect"). Of course, in order for the circuit court to make the appropriate adjudication, it is incumbent upon DHHR to draft a petition that includes all the necessary allegations and that does not unduly restrict the circuit court's ability to make the requisite finding.

As stated, the petition here alleged both abandonment and abuse/neglect.

Apparently, because the In re Cecil T. case just happened to have been decided in the context of a disposition, the majority nonsensically suggests that the substance of the law of that case is not applicable at adjudication. It would be absurd to suggest that substantive law set forth by this Court in a child abuse and neglect case does not apply equally at all stages of the proceedings.

Continuing Jurisdiction of the Lower Court

The majority erred in holding that the lower court lacked continuing jurisdiction in this case once the Court initially declined to adjudicate the petitioner father as having abandoned the children. They are clearly wrong in not permitting the existing proceedings to continue on remand. Instead, the majority offers the DHHR the option of filing a new petition, essentially creating the potential of a child never having a permanent placement. Here, the DHHR made broad allegations of abuse and/or neglect and/or abandonment, thus covering all bases. In requiring that a new or amended petition would have to be filed, and indeed giving the DHHR the discretion on whether to do so, the majority creates the potential to leave these children without ever having a permanent placement.

The majority relies on West Virginia Rule of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings 19(b) to support their determination that a new petition would have to be filed. Rule 19(b) provides:

If new allegations arise after the final adjudicatory hearing, the allegations should be included in an amended petition rather than in a separate petition in a new civil action, and the final adjudicatory hearing shall be re-opened for the purpose of hearing evidence on the new allegations in the amended petition.

Clearly, there were no new allegations.

In the instant case, the lower court revisited its initial adjudication decision and revised it. Indisputably, a court can always reconsider its earlier decision or ruling, which is precisely what the circuit court did here. As this Court has explained,

[t]he doctrine of "inherent power" provides: "A court 'has inherent power to do all things that are reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction.' " Syllabus Point 3, Shields v. Romine , 122 W.Va. 639, 13 S.E.2d 16 (1940). The "inherent power" doctrine is "well recognized" in West Virginia. See , e.g ., Daily Gazette v. Canady , 175 W.Va. 249, 251, 332 S.E.2d 262, 264 (1985).
....
This Court has recognized the desirability of circuit courts revisiting issues of substantial importance when fundamental rights are at stake: "We welcome the efforts of trial courts to correct errors they perceive before judgment is entered and while the adverse affects can be mitigated or abrogated." State v. Jarvis , 199 W.Va. 38, 45, 483 S.E.2d 38, 45 (1996).

State ex rel. Crafton v. Burnside , 207 W.Va. 74, 77 n.3, 528 S.E.2d 768, 771 n.3 (2000). Consequently, the circuit court had the authority and jurisdiction to revisit its earlier adjudicatory decision. Upon the circuit court's further consideration of the best interests of the children, the guardian ad litem's arguments, the petitioner's lengthy incarceration, and the factors provided in In re Cecil T. , the circuit court essentially reconsidered its earlier refusal to adjudicate based on abandonment. 228 W.Va. at 91, 717 S.E.2d at 875, syl. pt. 3. In doing so, however, the circuit court should have continued the dispositional hearing to a later date, absent the parties' agreement to proceed immediately to disposition.

As I conveyed in my dissent in In re K.H. , No. 18-0282, 2018 WL 6016722 (W.Va. Nov. 16, 2018) (memorandum decision), "our procedural rules are critically important and serve to ensure that due process is afforded all parties to an abuse and neglect proceeding." Id. at *8. Moreover, I firmly believe that "[a]lthough parents have substantial rights that must be protected, the primary goal in cases involving abuse and neglect, as in all family law matters, must be the health and welfare of the children." Syl. Pt. 3, In re Katie S. , 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589 (1996). Through the majority's inordinate emphasis on the rights of parents while failing to balance the children's rights, the majority ignores more than a century of this Court's decisions wherein we have reiterated, time and again, that the best interest and welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in matters involving child custody. See Syl. Pt. 2, Cunningham v. Barnes , 37 W.Va. 746, 17 S.E. 308 (1893) ("The welfare of the infant is the polar star by which the discretion of the court is to be guided; but the legal rights of the parent will be respected, being founded in nature and wisdom, unless they have been transferred or abandoned."); Cariens v. Cariens , 50 W.Va. 113, 119, 40 S.E. 335, 337 (1901) (finding "[t]he welfare of the child is the test" in custody determination); Nestor v. Nestor , 83 W.Va. 590, 98 S.E. 807 (1919) (recognizing that "[t]he welfare of the child is the guiding principle by which the court must be governed" in child custody case); Rierson v. Rierson , 107 W.Va. 321, 323, 148 S.E. 203, 204 (1929) ("While it is fundamentally true that in legal contests affecting the custody of children, their welfare is the primary consideration of the courts-the 'polar star' by which the discretion of the courts is to be guided[.]"); Straughan v. Straughan , 115 W.Va. 639, 177 S.E. 771, 772 (1934) (relying upon syllabus point two of Cunningham , 37 W.Va. 746, 17 S.E. 308, for guidance in custody decision); Syl. Pt. 2, State ex rel. Lipscomb v. Joplin , 131 W.Va. 302, 47 S.E.2d 221 (1948)

("In a contest involving the custody of an infant the welfare of the child is the polar star by which the discretion of the court will be guided."); Stout v. Massie , 140 W.Va. 731, 736, 88 S.E.2d 51, 54 (1955) (quoting syllabus point two of Joplin , 131 W.Va. 302, 47 S.E.2d 221, and describing it as an "inflexible and controlling principle of law which has been frequently stated by this Court in determining the question of the custody of an infant"); Holstein v. Holstein , 152 W.Va. 119, 122, 160 S.E.2d 177, 180 (1968) (citing pertinent West Virginia law as supporting parties' agreement that "the welfare of the children is the paramount and controlling factor" in custody contest); State ex rel. Cash v. Lively, 155 W.Va. 801, 804, 187 S.E.2d 601, 604 (1972) ("First and foremost in a contest involving the custody of a child is the consideration of that child's welfare. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that the welfare of the child is the polar star by which the discretion of the court will be guided."); David M. v. Margaret M. , 182 W.Va. 57, 60, 385 S.E.2d 912, 916 (1989) (The "child's welfare is the paramount and controlling factor in all custody matters.") (citations omitted); Syl. Pt. 5, Carter v. Carter , 196 W.Va. 239, 470 S.E.2d 193 (1996) ("In visitation as well as custody matters, we have traditionally held paramount the best interests of the child."); State ex rel. Jeanette H. v. Pancake, 207 W.Va. 154, 163, 529 S.E.2d 865, 874 (2000) (citing In re Katie S. , 198 W.Va. 79, 479 S.E.2d 589, and finding that "in considering the private interests that will be affected by termination proceedings, utmost priority must be given to the best interests of the child(ren) involved."); In re Kaitlyn P. , 225 W.Va. 123, 127, 690 S.E.2d 131, 135 (2010) (recognizing that parents have substantial rights that must be protected, but also that welfare of child is "polar star by which the discretion of the court will be guided") (citations omitted).

To facilitate achieving the primary goal of the health and welfare of the children, our circuit courts must follow the clearly delineated procedures for adjudication and disposition in child abuse and neglect matters, which serve to protect the rights of children, as well as their parents. The lower court's modification of adjudication was completely appropriate and the proceeding should have only been remanded for a separate dispositional hearing.

The Children's Best Interests

In conclusion, I encourage the circuit court (if the matter returns to court) to consider what will truly be in these children's best interest given their placement with a relative who has an amicable relationship with the petitioner. Particular consideration should be given to all available benefits for the children, including (if there is termination of rights) whether post-termination visitation might be appropriate. Having lost both parents, the children are fortunate that another relative has stepped up to provide them the parenting they need on a daily basis during the many years to come, especially given that the youngest child is only four years old. It is imperative that steps are taken to ensure that this relative will be provided with all the help that the system can provide to her and whether termination, temporary or permanent guardianship, subsidized adoption, or some other option can provide the maximum financial benefit should be a consideration.

II. Conclusion

For these reasons, I concur in part and dissent in part to the decision reached by the majority of the Court in this matter. 
      
      Consistent with our long-standing practice in cases with sensitive facts, we use initials where necessary to protect the identities of those involved in this case. See In re K.H. , 235 W.Va. 254, 256 n.1, 773 S.E.2d 20, 22 n.1 (2015). Because the children share the same initials, we will refer to them as A.P.-1, A.P.-2, and A.P.-3, respectively.
     
      
      The Petition also contained allegations of abuse against T.W., the children's mother, and factual allegations regarding J.B., a non-offending father to another child of T.W.'s; and E.P., D.P.'s sister, to whom T.W. had granted temporary custody of A.P.-1, A.P.-2, A.P.-3 before the filing of the Petition. The circuit court dismissed E.P. from these proceedings by order entered July 26, 2017. J.B. did not file a brief in Petitioner's appeal. In November 2018, this Court affirmed the circuit court's termination of T.W.'s parental rights to A.P.-1, A.P.-2, and A.P.-3, and another infant not at issue in this appeal. See In re A.P.-1 , No. 18-0444, 2018 WL 5258859, *5 (W. Va. Oct. 19, 2018).
     
      
      The Court's October 6, 2017 "Order with Respect to Adjudication of [T.W.] and [D.P.]." refers to the October 3 hearing as a "preliminary hearing."
     
      
      The circuit court docket shows that the parties did provide additional authority on this issue to the circuit court. Those filings were not made a part of the appendix record, however, and have not been reviewed by this Court.
     
      
      172 W. Va. 47, 303 S.E.2d 685 (1983).
     
      
      228 W. Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (2011).
     
      
      After D.P. filed this appeal, questions arose regarding the paternity of A.P.-3. According to the guardian ad litem, D.P. is A.P.-3's psychological father and not her biological father. That issue was not presented to the circuit court and falls outside the scope of Petitioner's appeal to this Court.
     
      
      See Syl. Pt. 1, in part, In Interest of: Tiffany Marie S. , 196 W. Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (1996).
     
      
      Syl. Pt. 1, Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Dep't of W. Va. , 195 W. Va. 573, 466 S.E.2d 424 (1995).
     
      
      See Syl. Pt. 1, in part, In Interest of: Tiffany Marie S. , 196 W. Va. at 223, 470 S.E.2d at 177.
     
      
      228 W. Va. at 89, 717 S.E.2d at 873.
     
      
      No. 18-0282, 2018 WL 6016722 (W. Va. Nov. 16, 2018).
     
      
      Id . at *4 (emphasis in original).
     
      
      W. Va. R. of Pro. for Child Abuse and Neglect 3(a).
     
      
      Id . at R. 3(i).
     
      
      In re K.H. , 2018 WL 6016722, at *4.
     
      
      Id . at *5-6 (quoting In Re Beth Ann B. , 204 W.Va. 424, 427, 513 S.E.2d 472, 475 (1998) ) (emphasis added).
     
      
      Syl. Pt. 1, State v. T.C. , 172 W. Va. at 47, 303 S.E.2d at 685 (emphasis added).
     
      
      Id . at 50, 303 S.E.2d at 688.
     
      
      The circuit court must also observe the additional procedural requirements and safeguards contained in West Virginia Code Chapter 49, Article 4.
     
      
      In re K.H. , 2018 WL 6016722, at *5 (cleaned up).
     
      
      Id .
     
      
      172 W. Va. at 47, 303 S.E.2d at 685.
     
      
      See Syl. Pt. 3, In re Cecil T. , 228 W. Va. at 89, 717 S.E.2d at 873.
     
      
      See id . at 93, 717 S.E.2d at 877.
     
      
      Id . at 94, 717 S.E.2d at 878.
     
      
      Id . ("Appellants maintain that the lower court erred by not terminating the parental rights of Appellee pursuant to West Virginia Code § 49-6-5(a)(6) [now § 49-4-604 ] because the failure to terminate does not provide a meaningful permanency plan for Cecil T., and wrongly places the father's parental rights above that of the best interests of the child.").
     
      
      Id . at 89, 717 S.E.2d at 875.
     
      
      Circuit courts should be mindful that In re Cecil T. does not foreclose a finding at the adjudicatory stage that a parent's absence due to incarceration that harms or threatens the physical or mental health of the child is neglect. West Virginia Code § 49-1-201 (2015) (defining "neglect"). Of course, in order for the circuit court to make the appropriate adjudication, it is incumbent upon DHHR to draft a petition that includes all the necessary allegations and that does not unduly restrict the circuit court's ability to make the requisite finding.
     
      
      In re K.H. , 2018 WL 6016722, at *6.
     
      
      See W. Va. R. of Proc. Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings 19(b) ("[i]f new allegations arise after the final adjudicatory hearing, the allegations should be included in an amended petition ... and the final adjudicatory hearing shall be re-opened for the purpose of hearing evidence on the new allegations in the amended petition.").
     
      
      In re K.H. , 2018 WL 6016722 at *5 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
     
      
      See W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(f) and (h) ; State ex rel. H.S. v. Beane , 240 W. Va. 643, 647-48, 814 S.E.2d 660, 664-65 (2018) ("custodian" in § 49-4-601(h) is one who "held custodial rights to the children prior to the initiation of the abuse and neglect petition").
     
      
      Here, the petitioner will not be eligible for parole consideration until 2029, at which time the children will be ages 19, 17, and 14, respectively.
     
      
      The mother's rights have been terminated, the father is in prison for at least 10 more years, so there is currently no permanent placement for the children. My former colleague, Justice Richard Neely, used to characterize such unnecessary procedural obstacles as "death by due process."
     
      
      See In re Timber M. , 231 W.Va. 44, 59, 743 S.E.2d 352, 367 (2013) ("[I]t is clear from our procedural rules, as well as our prior case law, that '[t]here cannot be too much advocacy for children.' State ex rel. Diva P. v. Kaufman , 200 W.Va. 555, 570, 490 S.E.2d 642, 657 (1997) (Workman, C.J., concurring).").
     
      
      Rule 32(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings provides that the disposition hearing may immediately follow the adjudication hearing if, inter alia, the parties agree and notice of such hearing was provided or waived by all parties.
     
      
      While ignoring a body of case law developed over the last 100 years, the majority blithely refers to a divided decision just filed five months ago as "well-settled law."
     
      
      See Syl. Pt. 5, In re Christina L. , 194 W.Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (1995) ("When parental rights are terminated due to neglect or abuse, the circuit court may nevertheless in appropriate cases consider whether continued visitation or other contact with the abusing parent is in the best interest of the child. Among other things, the circuit court should consider whether a close emotional bond has been established between parent and child and the child's wishes, if he or she is of appropriate maturity to make such request. The evidence must indicate that such visitation or continued contact would not be detrimental to the child's well being and would be in the child's best interest.").
     