Sherry Lynn Knight v. Mitchell L. Laney ( 1996 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton
SHERRY LYNN KNIGHT
v. Record No. 1190-95-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
MITCHELL L. LANEY JANUARY 11, 1996
AND
ROBERTA G. LANEY
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF YORK COUNTY
G. Duane Holloway, Judge Designate
(Vicki Beard, on brief), for appellant.
(James W. Elliott, on brief), for appellees.
Sherry Lynn Knight appeals the decision of the circuit court
granting an interlocutory order of adoption. The order granted
the petition of Mitchell L. Laney and Roberta G. Laney to adopt
Knight's infant daughter, Kayla Ashley Nicole Green. In her
appeal, Knight contends that (1) the interlocutory order of
adoption is an appealable order; and (2) there was insufficient
evidence to support the circuit court's findings. Upon reviewing
the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that the
interlocutory order is an appealable order, but that the appeal
is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision
of the trial court. Rule 5A:27.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
Appealable Interlocutory Order
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.05, the Court of Appeals has
jurisdiction to hear an appeal from "[a]ny final judgment, order,
or decree of a circuit court involving: . . . [a]doption." Code
§ 17-116.05(3)(g). The Court of Appeals also has jurisdiction to
hear an appeal from "[a]ny interlocutory decree or order entered
in any of the cases listed in this section . . . (ii)
adjudicating the principles of a cause." Id. § 17-116.05(4).
The interlocutory order of adoption effectively resolved the
issue between these parties. Therefore, the interlocutory order
of adoption was an appealable order. See Watson v. Shepard, 217
Va. 538, 539, 229 S.E.2d 897, 898 (1976).
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Under Code § 63.1-225(E) (1993), the consent of the natural
parent to an adoption is required unless the court finds that the
parent's consent "is withheld contrary to the best interests of
the child." "To so prove, the evidence must establish that the
person withholding consent is acting prejudicially to the child's
interest." Frye v. Spotte, 4 Va. App. 530, 535-36, 359 S.E.2d
315, 319 (1987).
A simple finding that adoption would promote
the child's interest or that the adoptive
parent could better provide for the child
does not alone support the conclusion that
consent was withheld contrary to the best
interests of the child. Not only must the
adoption be in the child's best interest, but
a continuation of the relationship between
the nonconsenting parent and the child must
be detrimental to the child's welfare. If
the relationship with the natural parent does
2
not benefit the child, yet it is not shown to
be detrimental, there is insufficient
justification for granting an adoption over
the objection of the natural parent.
Id. at 536, 359 S.E.2d at 319. An adoption over the parent's
objection should not be granted except upon clear and convincing
evidence. Id. at 532, 359 S.E.2d at 317. "[W]here the trial
court's decision is based upon an ore tenus hearing, that
decision is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on
appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it."
Linkous v. Kingery, 10 Va. App. 45, 57, 390 S.E.2d 188, 194
(1990).
Kayla was born on February 3, 1992, and was placed in the
Laneys' home in May 1992. As set out in the Statement of Facts,
Kayla "was born prematurely with a positive drug screen for
opiate, cocaine, metabolites and amphetamines, and . . . was
addicted to cocaine, heroin and Xanax." Knight was incarcerated
for felony drug convictions at the time of the petition hearing,
and none of the parties at the hearing could state when Knight
would be released. Knight also had given birth to another child
while incarcerated. Knight provided no financial support or
physical care for Kayla after March 28, 1992.
Knight opposed the adoption on the grounds that it was in
Kayla's best interest to continue to have a relationship with her
natural mother. However, the evidence showed that there was no
relationship between Knight and Kayla after Kayla was placed in
the custody of the Laneys. To the extent there had been a
3
relationship before that time, it had been demonstratively
detrimental to Kayla's health and welfare.
"Finding that the continuation of a poor,
strained or nonexistent parent-child
relationship will be detrimental to a child's
future welfare is difficult. No one can
divine with any assurance the future course
of human events. Nevertheless, past actions
and relationships over a meaningful period
serve as good indicators of what the future
may be expected to hold. Trial courts may,
when presented with clear and convincing
evidence, make an informed and rational
judgment and determine that the continued
relationship between a child and a non-
consenting parent will be detrimental to the
child's welfare."
Linkous, 10 Va. App. at 56, 390 S.E.2d at 194 (quoting Frye, 4
Va. App. at 536, 359 S.E.2d at 319).
The Laneys were found to be "financially able and morally
suitable and proper persons to adequately maintain, care for and
train" Kayla. The trial court found that clear and convincing
evidence proved it was in Kayla's best interests to grant the
Laneys' petition for adoption, and that a continued relationship
with Knight was detrimental to Kayla's welfare. We cannot say
that the trial court's decision was plainly wrong or without
evidence to support it.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
4