Deneen Hicks Rainwater v. Roanoke City DSS ( 1997 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Bray and Fitzpatrick
DENEEN HICKS RAINWATER
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1877-96-3 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY
APRIL 29, 1997
ROANOKE CITY DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
Robert P. Doherty, Jr., Judge
(Onzlee Ware, on brief), for appellant.
Appellant submitting on brief.
(Ann Gardner, Assistant Commonwealth's
Attorney, on brief), for appellee. Appellee
submitting on brief.
Deneen Hicks Rainwater appeals an order of the trial court
which terminated Rainwater's parental rights to three of her
children. She argues that the Department of Social Services
(DSS) failed to provide her (1) a copy of the foster care plan in
accordance with Code § 16.1-281 and (2) "appropriate, available
and reasonable rehabilitative efforts . . . to reduce, eliminate
or prevent the neglect or abuse of the child[ren]" pursuant to
Code § 16.1-283. Finding Rainwater's arguments are procedurally
barred, we affirm the order.
It is well established that arguments not timely presented
to the trial court are deemed waived on appeal, absent good cause
or to attain the ends of justice. Rule 5A:18; see, e.g., Deal v.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 157, 161, 421 S.E.2d 897, 900 (1992).
Here, Rainwater did not complain before the trial court of a
failure by DSS to comply with the provisions of Code § 16.1-281.
To the contrary, appellant's counsel stipulated that the "case
[was] properly before the Court," arguing only that Rainwater had
resolved the circumstances which had prompted foster care
placement. See Code § 16.1-283. Moreover, the instant order of
the trial court recited that "the cause came on to be heard upon
proper and timely Notice" to the parties and was endorsed by
Rainwater's counsel, "Seen," without objection. Rainwater,
similarly, did not challenge the adequacy of DSS "efforts" to
remediate the abuse and neglect of the children pursuant to Code
§ 16.1-283.
Rainwater does not contend that good cause or the ends of
justice require consideration of these issues, and the record
does not suggest a contrary result on the merits. See Jimenez v.
Commonwealth, 241 Va. 244, 249-50, 402 S.E.2d 678, 680-81 (1991);
Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 433, 436, 357 S.E.2d 742, 744
(1987).
Accordingly, we decline appellate review and affirm the
decision of the trial court.
Affirmed.
- 2 -