Jadeen and Susan Lowery v. H'burg-R'ham S.S.D. ( 1998 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Lemons
JADEEN LOWERY AND SUSAN LOWERY
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0661-98-3 PER CURIAM
SEPTEMBER 29, 1998
HARRISONBURG-ROCKINGHAM SOCIAL
SERVICES DISTRICT
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
John J. McGrath, Jr., Judge
(Roland M. L. Santos; Jeffrey F. Bradley; on
brief), for appellants.
(L. Quinn Kaylor; Christel L. Lewis; Lewis,
Ruple, Hart & Temeles, on brief), for
appellee.
Jadeen Lowery (father) and Susan Lowery (mother) appeal the
decision of the circuit court terminating their residual parental
rights. The Harrisonburg-Rockingham Social Services District
(District) filed an action to terminate father's and mother's
parental rights under Code § 16.1-283. On appeal, the parents
contend that the District failed to present clear and convincing
evidence sufficient to support the termination under Code
§ 16.1-283(C). Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the
parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court.
See Rule 5A:27.
"When addressing matters concerning a child, including the
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
termination of a parent's residual parental rights, the paramount
consideration of a trial court is the child's best interests."
Logan v. Fairfax County Dep't of Human Development, 13 Va. App.
123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991).
"In matters of a child's welfare, trial
courts are vested with broad discretion in
making the decisions necessary to guard and
to foster a child's best interests." The
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. (citations omitted).
Code § 16.1-283(C) provides that the residual parental
rights of a child placed in foster care may be terminated if the
trial court finds it is in the best interests of the child and,
in pertinent part,
[t]he parent or parents, without good cause,
have been unwilling or unable within a
reasonable period not to exceed twelve months
to remedy substantially the conditions which
led to the child's foster care placement,
notwithstanding the reasonable and
appropriate efforts of social, medical,
mental health or other rehabilitative
agencies to such end.
Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). Proof that the parents, without good
cause, failed or were unable to make reasonable progress towards
the elimination of the conditions which led to the child's foster
care placement in accordance with their obligations under a
jointly designed foster care plan is prima facie evidence of the
conditions set forth in Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). See Code
§ 16.1-283(C)(3)(b).
- 2 -
The child, born in 1989, is a special needs child identified
as congenitally emotionally disturbed. He has speech, learning,
and behavior problems and exhibits behavior which places him and
others at risk of injury. Evidence at the hearing indicated that
the child "cannot live in the foster care or attend regular
school without some medication, otherwise, he will need
institutional care." He was placed in foster care after setting
a fire which destroyed the apartment building in which the family
lived. The District placed the child in foster care placement
due to the family's inadequate housing and out of concern that
the parents were unable to adequately supervise the child.
At the time of trial, inadequate housing was no longer an
issue. The District sought to terminate the parental rights on
the ground that neither mother nor father was able to provide
adequate supervision, a situation complicated by the child's
special needs.
The trial court found that the parents failed, without good
cause, to remedy substantially the conditions which led to the
child's foster care placement within a reasonable period of time
despite the District's provision of services. The trial court
also found that termination of the parties' parental rights was
in the child's best interests.
On appeal, mother and father contend that the evidence did
not demonstrate that they failed to comply with their obligations
under the foster care service plan. Both attended some parenting
- 3 -
classes. They argue that the District failed to present evidence
of any instances of inadequate supervision on their part during
the relevant time period.
The District established that neither parent successfully
complied with the requirements set out in the foster care service
plans. Father was hostile and threatening to those who tried to
assist him and his son. The trial court found father in contempt
of court for threats made during the course of the proceedings.
While mother was not as hostile as father, she also was unwilling
or unable to work with the District and the other professionals
in order to address the issues relevant to her son's special
needs. The evidence established that their son required someone
who could work well with the myriad of service providers he
needed. Neither mother nor father demonstrated that they
recognized or understood the extent of services needed by their
child. Expert testimony indicated that both parents would have
difficulty dealing with the special needs of their child due to
numerous problems each of them presented as documented in the
record of the case.
Credible evidence supports the trial court's findings that
neither parent had remedied substantially the conditions which
led to the foster care placement, despite the efforts of
rehabilitative agencies, and that it was in the best interests of
the child to terminate the parental rights of father and mother.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
- 4 -
affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 5 -