Mary Powers, n/k/a, etc. v. Chesterfield-Col. H DSS ( 1997 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton
MARY POWERS, n/k/a
MARY POWERS EVANGELISTA
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0249-97-2 PER CURIAM
AUGUST 12, 1997
CHESTERFIELD-COLONIAL HEIGHTS
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
Herbert C. Gill, Jr., Judge
(Scott D. Landry, on brief), for appellant.
(Steven L. Micas, County Attorney; Michael S. J.
Chernau, Assistant County Attorney, on brief), for
appellee.
Mary Powers (Powers), now known as Mary Powers Evangelista,
appeals the decision of the circuit court terminating her
residual parental rights to her children, Kevin, Laura, and
Barbara. Powers contends that the trial court erred by
(1) finding that the Chesterfield-Colonial Heights Department of
Social Services (DSS) presented sufficient evidence to support a
finding pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2); and (2) finding that
DSS presented sufficient evidence that termination of her
parental rights was in the best interests of the children. 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. Rule 5A:27.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
"Code § 16.1-283 embodies '[t]he statutory scheme for the
. . . termination of residual parental rights in this
Commonwealth.'" Lecky v. Reed, 20 Va. App. 306, 311, 456 S.E.2d
538, 540 (1995) (citation omitted). "This 'scheme provides
detailed procedures designed to protect the rights of the parents
and their child,' balancing their interests while seeking to
preserve the family. However, we have consistently held that
'[t]he child's best interest is the paramount concern.'" Id.
(citations omitted).
"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."
Logan v. Fairfax County Dep't of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123,
128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991) (citations omitted).
I.
Powers contends that the trial court erred when it found
sufficient evidence that she had been unwilling or unable within
a reasonable period of time not exceeding twelve months to remedy
substantially the conditions which led to her children's foster
care placement, notwithstanding the reasonable and appropriate
efforts of rehabilitative agencies. See Code § 16.1-283(C)(2).
The record, however, demonstrates that, at the time they were
placed in foster care, two of the three children displayed
inappropriate sexual activity. All of the children showed
2
various symptoms of psychological and emotional distress related
to Powers' abuse and inappropriate parenting. A home visit also
revealed that Powers' housekeeping skills were poor and that
roaches and flies were increasingly evident.
Powers' compliance with the foster care plan was sporadic.
She did not cooperate with the intensive family services provided
through DSS, ultimately terminated as a result of Powers' poor
attitude. She refused to acknowledge any fault in connection
with her children's placement into foster care. She denied any
fault with regard to her sexual abuse of her daughter, despite
clear substantiation of the child's claims and Powers' subsequent
plea of guilty to sexual battery.
The record demonstrates that DSS did make sufficient
reasonable and appropriate efforts to assist Powers, and that
those services failed largely because Powers did not acknowledge
any need for services and did not accept any responsibility for
her children's traumatized state. The record therefore supports
the trial court's conclusion that DSS presented clear and
convincing evidence that Powers, without good cause and for a
period in excess of twelve months, was unwilling or unable to
substantially correct the conditions which led to the children's
foster care placement, notwithstanding the assistance of DSS.
II.
DSS produced clear and convincing evidence in the trial
court that termination of Powers' parental rights was in the
3
children's best interests. When the family began receiving
services, the children showed signs of serious psychological
trauma. One heard voices telling her to kill her sister; another
was masturbating, head banging, and suffering from enuresis.
Powers yelled at the children, threatening to hit or kill them,
and demonstrated few appropriate parenting skills. Despite
receiving services, the family did not progress, as one child
tried to set the house on fire and another was acting out
sexually at school.
According to the written statement of facts, the children
while in foster care
continued in therapy with consistent
improvements over time to the extent that
they had finally worked through the major
symptoms of trauma and were no longer in need
of therapy. They were beginning to enjoy
life as well-adjusted children.
After the children were brought under DSS' custody, two of the
children had a single contact with Powers. Those two children
also expressed an interest in seeing Powers again, although none
of the children wanted to live with Powers and all expressed a
desire to be adopted. The eldest child consistently indicated
she did not want to see Powers again.
While Powers pled guilty to sexual battery of her eldest
child and served time in jail, she refused to acknowledge any
responsibility for the children's problems, and dismissed her own
failures as a parent. Thus, there was no realistic expectation
that the children could be returned to Powers' care in the
4
foreseeable future, if at all. "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
. . . responsibilities." Kaywood v. Halifax County Dep't of
Social Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1990).
Therefore, we find no error in the trial court's determination
that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate
Powers' parental rights.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
5