In Re: A.A.-1, and A.A.-2, 16-0622

DHHR filed abuse and neglect petition (June 2015) against father (M.A.), the mother, and a step-parent; mother incarcerated and step-parent abused drugs.
Family Court had previously entered a protective order restraining father from contacting his children after he arranged to remove them; a temporary order barred P.B. (father’s live-in girlfriend) from contacting the children due to prior involuntary terminations of her parental rights.
DHHR amended the petition alleging father continued to reside with and defend P.B. despite warnings and court orders that she was an ongoing danger and inappropriate caretaker.
Adjudicatory hearings: witnesses testified children feared P.B.; father claimed relationship ended days before the first hearing and that P.B. was now drug‑free; court found father’s claims suspect and adjudicated him an abusing parent for exposing children to P.B.
Dispositional hearings: father missed therapy, continued contact with P.B. (including travel to Arizona and later seen together locally), and admitted he still lived with/was in a relationship with her; DHHR concluded services would not remedy the abuse/neglect and recommended termination.
Circuit court found no reasonable likelihood conditions could be corrected and terminated father’s parental rights; Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (M.A.)	Defendant's Argument (DHHR / Circuit Court)	Held
Whether adjudication as an abusing parent based on father’s relationship with P.B. was erroneous	Father: Adjudication based solely on association is insufficient; he lacked physical custody, no actual harm occurred, and P.B.’s past terminations may not reflect current danger	Court/DHHR: Continued association with a person judicially determined inappropriate threatened children’s supervision and mental health; children feared P.B.; father defended and lived with P.B. despite warnings	Held: Adjudication affirmed—father’s association with P.B. supported finding of neglect/abuse
Whether termination of parental rights was improper because it relied solely on the relationship with P.B.	Father: Termination based only on association is punitive and unsupported; corrective services could have been possible	Defendant: Father failed to follow or benefit from case plan, refused to sever relationship, attended no therapy, and continued contact, showing no likelihood of correction	Held: Termination affirmed—no reasonable likelihood conditions could be substantially corrected and children’s welfare required termination

In Interest of Tiffany Marie S., 196 W.Va. 223, 470 S.E.2d 177 (W.Va. 1996) (standard of review for fact findings in bench trials)
In re Cecil T., 228 W.Va. 89, 717 S.E.2d 873 (W.Va. 2011) (standard of review for abuse and neglect factual findings)
In re Emily, 208 W.Va. 325, 540 S.E.2d 542 (W.Va. 2000) (deference to circuit court on witness credibility in abuse and neglect cases)
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C., 201 W.Va. 381, 497 S.E.2d 531 (W.Va. 1997) (reiterating appellate deference to factfinder on credibility)