Shannita Jones v. Arlington County Department of Human Services ( 2017 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
UNPUBLISHED
Present: Judges Alston, Chafin and Senior Judge Haley
SHANNITA JONES
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 0569-17-4 JUDGE JAMES W. HALEY, JR.
DECEMBER 12, 2017
ARLINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF HUMAN SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
Louise M. DiMatteo, Judge
(Deborah E. Kramer, on briefs), for appellant. Appellant submitting
on briefs.
(Jason L. McCandless, Assistant County Attorney; Aaron S. Book,
Guardian ad litem for the minor children; Webster Book LLP, on
brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on
brief.
Shannita Jones (mother) is appealing the orders terminating her parental rights to her two
children and approving the goals of adoption. Mother argues that the circuit court erred by
(1) finding that mother “had been unwilling or unable within a reasonable period of time not to
exceed twelve (12) months from the time that the children were placed in foster care to remedy
substantially those conditions which led to the child’s [sic] placement;” (2) finding that “the services
offered the mother were reasonable and appropriate;” (3) affirming the foster care service plan and
finding that “the best interest of the minor children was for them to be adopted;” and (4) finding that
“the children’s behavior indicated that they were exposed to more things and aware of more things
because of life with their mother, and us[ing] this finding to support it’s [sic] ruling to terminate the
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
mother’s residual parental rights.” Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude
that the circuit court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the decisions of the circuit court.
BACKGROUND
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and grant
to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Logan v. Fairfax Cty. Dep’t of
Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991).
Mother’s two children, who were born in 2005 and 2011, are the subject of this appeal.1
On October 7, 2015, the Arlington County Department of Human Services (the Department)
became involved with the family after it received reports of inadequate supervision and possible
substance abuse by mother. The Child Protective Services unit (CPS) referred the family to
ongoing services and developed a safety plan. On November 6, 2015, the Department again
became involved with the family after the police contacted it. The older child, who was ten
years old at the time, was wandering the halls of the family’s apartment building and was crying
after a fire alarm sounded. The police could not locate mother. On November 8, 2015, the
police responded to a report that mother was hitting the older child with a belt in the hallway of
the apartment building. The police observed bruises on the child’s arm and back. On November
9, 2015, CPS conducted an unannounced visit and discovered that both children were home
alone. The CPS investigator called mother, and she returned home. They made a temporary
plan for the children to stay with a relative in Washington D.C. However, once the Department
discovered that an adult in the home had a criminal history, the Department placed the children
in foster care.
On December 9, 2015, the JDR court found that mother had neglected the children.
However, the JDR court granted mother’s request for the children to be placed back in her home.
1
Mother has another child who is older and not the subject of this appeal.
-2-
The JDR court issued preliminary protective orders and held that the Department had legal
custody of the children.
CPS conducted two unannounced visits to the home and found mother’s boyfriend
present. The Department learned that mother’s boyfriend had a criminal history and
implemented a safety plan prohibiting mother’s boyfriend from having any contact, or being in
the home, with the children. Afterwards, on December 27, 2015, the police responded to
mother’s home due to a domestic violence incident between mother and her boyfriend. The
children were home at the time of the incident. On December 28, 2015, the Department removed
the children from mother’s care.
The Department worked with mother and provided her services, but to no avail. The
Department referred mother to a mental health therapist for an intake assessment. Mother
attended four different intakes, but did not comply with the recommended services. Mother
tested positive for marijuana and PCP on three separate occasions. The therapist recommended
that mother attend a detoxification program, which mother did from March 25 to April 2, 2016.
She was discharged before she completed the program because she did not comply with the rules
and exhibited “challenging behaviors.” Mother was not a candidate for outpatient therapy
because she did not show any interest in treatment. In April and May 2016, mother tested
positive for marijuana and PCP. She was referred to the detox program again, but she refused to
go. In August 2016, she continued to test positive for marijuana and PCP.
The Department also referred mother for a psychological evaluation and parent-child
assessment. The psychologist arranged for a drug screen, and mother tested positive for PCP,
marijuana, and dextromethorphan. The psychologist stated that mother appeared to be under the
influence of drugs during the evaluation. The psychologist determined that mother had
underlying mental health issues and was using drugs to self-medicate. The psychologist
-3-
concluded that mother needed to get inpatient treatment for her substance abuse issues and then
participate in individual therapy. Mother did not do so.
The Department referred mother to a parenting class. Mother completed the parenting
class, but tested positive for marijuana and PCP while she was taking the class. The Department
also arranged for visitation between mother and the children. However, the visitations stopped
after May 24, 2016 because of mother’s continued drug use. Mother never admitted she had a
substance abuse problem. In addition, mother lost her home when her housing voucher was
terminated in August 2016.
On September 29, 2016, the JDR court approved the foster care plans with the goals of
adoption. On January 26, 2017, the JDR court terminated mother’s parental rights to her
children. Mother appealed to the circuit court.
On March 22 and 29, 2017, the parties presented evidence and argument to the circuit
court. The Department presented evidence about the children and how they were doing in foster
care. The youngest child’s therapist testified about the progress the child had made since being
in foster care. The child has an attachment/adjustment disorder and has trouble controlling her
emotions and impulses. The therapist said that the child had benefitted from the consistency and
structure in her foster care home.
The foster care mother explained that both children were emotionally behind their peers.
When they first came into foster care, the children had anxiety issues and were aggressive. The
older child was behind in school and had memory problems. The foster care mother testified
about the children’s extensive needs, but also relayed the progress they had made.
Mother testified that she was living in an apartment in Washington D.C. with a male
friend. She did not have a job. Mother had not started seeing a substance abuse counselor. She
could not remember the last time that she used PCP, and she still used marijuana. Mother said
-4-
that she had a prescription for the marijuana; however, she did not have any documentation to
corroborate this claim. Mother did not believe that her children were delayed or needed therapy.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court held that it was in the children’s best
interests to terminate mother’s parental rights and approved the goals of adoption. This appeal
followed.
ANALYSIS
Termination of parental rights – Assignments of error 1, 2, and 4
“When reviewing termination of residual parental rights, this Court presumes that the trial
court ‘thoroughly weighed all the evidence, considered the statutory requirements, and made its
determination based on the child’s best interests.’” Eaton v. Washington Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,
66 Va. App. 317, 324, 785 S.E.2d 231, 235 (2016) (quoting Fields v. Dinwiddie Cty. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 7, 614 S.E.2d 656, 659 (2005)). “[I]n a case involving termination of
parental rights, ‘[t]he trial court’s judgment, when based on evidence heard ore tenus, will not be
disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.’” Id. (quoting Fields, 46
Va. App. at 7, 614 S.E.2d at 659).
The circuit court terminated mother’s parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2),
which states that a court may terminate parental rights if
[t]he parent or parents, without good cause, have been unwilling or
unable within a reasonable period of time not to exceed twelve
months from the date the child was placed in foster care to remedy
substantially the conditions which led to or required continuation
of the child’s foster care placement, notwithstanding the
reasonable and appropriate efforts of social, medical, mental health
or other rehabilitative agencies to such end.
Mother argues that the circuit court erred when it found that mother was unwilling or unable
to remedy substantially the conditions that led to the children being placed in foster care. Mother
complied with some of the Department’s requirements, such as going to a parenting class and
-5-
participating in a psychological evaluation. However, mother had not complied with any of the
Department’s requirements regarding substance abuse treatment. Mother did not participate in a
detox program. She claims she did not complete or attend the program because she previously was
sexually harassed at the program. Yet, she did not seek referrals to any other programs, nor did she
follow any of the psychologist’s or substance abuse counselor’s recommendations regarding
therapy. Mother repeatedly tested positive for drugs and admitted she continued to use marijuana.
Mother claimed that the services offered to her were not reasonable or appropriate because
they never addressed her mental health issues. However, the psychologist and therapists explained
that until mother had addressed her substance abuse issues, a counselor could not diagnose and treat
her mental health problems. The circuit court noted that the evidence proved that “if there are
co-occurring disorders, which is what we may have here, it is hard to find out what is going on if
someone is using.” The circuit court concluded that the Department correctly put “some
chronological priority” on substance abuse.
“‘Reasonable and appropriate’ efforts can only be judged with reference to the
circumstances of a particular case. Thus, a court must determine what constitutes reasonable and
appropriate efforts given the facts before the court.” Ferguson v. Stafford Cty. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs., 14 Va. App. 333, 338, 417 S.E.2d 1, 4 (1992). “The Department is not required ‘to force
its services upon an unwilling or disinterested parent.’” Logan, 13 Va. App. at 130, 409 S.E.2d
at 463-64 (quoting Barkey v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 662, 670, 347 S.E.2d 188, 192
(1986)).
In this case, the circuit court did not err in finding that the Department made reasonable
and appropriate efforts to provide mother with services, but she refused to participate in the
necessary substance abuse treatment.
-6-
Mother also did not recognize the children’s needs. The foster care mother testified
about the children’s problems when they arrived in foster care and their ongoing needs. The
circuit court found that the children’s needs were “substantial, varied and will be longstanding”
and that at the time of the hearing, mother was incapable of meeting those needs.
Mother contends the circuit court erred when it stated that “what happened and preceded
the Department’s involvement with these children was substantial and severe.” The circuit court
was concerned about what the children were exposed to while living with mother because it
found that the older child “is cautious and he is constantly on the lookout.” The circuit court
said, “No 11-year-old should ever worry about his personal safety, and he clearly does.” Mother
emphasized that the youngest child’s therapist could not state that the youngest child’s problems
with regulating her body movements were caused by problems she had with her mother.
However, the therapist explained that she could not make that conclusion because she had no
interaction with mother.
Contrary to mother’s arguments, the circuit court considered all of the evidence and
found that “the children need more than what [mother is] able to give them and they need
someone who can recognize where they are, what they need, and how it can be handled, and that
does not exist with mother, unfortunately.” The circuit court did not err in terminating mother’s
parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2).
Goal of adoption – Assignment of error #3
Mother argues that the circuit court erred in approving the goal of adoption for the children
and contends the goal should have been return home. She noted that the foster care mother testified
that she and her husband were not planning on adopting the children due to the foster care parents’
ages. Mother asserts that she could provide the stability that the children needed and would not
receive if they were transferred to another family.
-7-
As noted above, the circuit court found that it was not in the children’s best interests to
return home because at the time of the hearing, mother was not in a position to care for the children.
“It is clearly not in the best interests of a child to spend a lengthy period of time waiting to find
out when, or even if, a parent will be capable of resuming his [or her] responsibilities.”
Kaywood v. Halifax Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495
(1990).
The circuit court did not err in approving the foster care plans with the goals of adoption
for the children.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s rulings are affirmed.
Affirmed.
-8-