A juvenile court found several children dependent and concluded that the cause of their dependency was likely to continue. The mother appealed, arguing that the court’s order did not contain findings sufficient to support the statutory conclusion by clear and convincing evidence. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded. Although the juvenile court stated that the conditions causing dependency were likely to continue, it did not explain the factual process supporting that conclusion or identify which specific facts showed that the conditions would persist. General references to the court’s earlier findings were insufficient for meaningful appellate review, particularly where a corrected factual analysis could affect the ultimate disposition. The appellate court did not decide whether the children were in fact dependent or whether continued removal was warranted. It directed the juvenile court to enter a properly supported order with explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law. One judge concurred, and the presiding judge concurred in the judgment only.