Alexander Giles v. Richmond Dept. Social Services ( 2003 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bumgardner, Kelsey and Senior Judge Hodges
ALEXANDER GILES
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0445-03-2 PER CURIAM
JULY 15, 2003
RICHMOND DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Melvin R. Hughes, Jr., Judge
(Craig W. Sampson; Sampson Law Firm, PLC, on
brief), for appellant.
(Sarah M. Denham, Assistant City Attorney;
Rene S. Hicks, Guardian ad Litem for Hakeem
Baker, on brief), for appellee.
Alexander Giles (father) appeals a decision of the trial
court terminating his parental rights and approving a goal of
adoption for Hakeem Baker (the child). On appeal, father argues
that the trial court failed to adequately explore the possibility
of placing the child with a relative pursuant to Code
§ 16.1-283(A). 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.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
BACKGROUND
On appeal, we view the evidence and all the reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the Richmond Department
of Social Services (RDSS) as the party prevailing below. See
McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App. 248, 250, 391 S.E.2d 344, 346
(1990).
Father and Kelly Baker (mother) are the parents of the child.
The child was born on August 19, 2001, at which time he tested
positive for cocaine. He was immediately removed from the
parents' care, and when he was two days old, he was placed in a
foster home. He remains in that home. RDSS provided numerous
services to the parents, but the parents did not comply with the
services.
The goal of the first foster care plan was placement with
relatives. In June 2002, RDSS filed a foster care plan with a
goal of adoption. In July 2002, the juvenile and domestic
relations district court approved the plan and terminated the
parental rights of both parents. The circuit court also approved
the plan with the goal of adoption and terminated the parental
rights of father and mother.
At the trial court hearing, Bragail Williams, an employee of
RDSS who worked with the family from August 2001 until January
2002, testified that the parents identified the child's maternal
grandmother as a possible relative to take custody of the child.
Williams stated that RDSS investigated the grandmother and
- 2 -
determined there were several child protective services (CPS)
complaints filed against her in both Wisconsin and Virginia. In
addition, one of her children had been in foster care for at least
six years and she had been convicted of felony child neglect in
Wisconsin. The maternal grandmother also had had several other
children removed from her custody, two of whom "aged out of the
system." Therefore, RDSS did not find her to be a suitable
relative for custody of the child.
Glynis Boyd, the foster care worker for the family since
January 25, 2002, also testified concerning the RDSS investigation
of the maternal grandmother. Boyd reiterated Williams' testimony
that RDSS had determined the maternal grandmother was an
inappropriate custodian based on a CPS complaint against her and
the fact that her son remained in foster care because she had not
addressed certain "issues."
Boyd also testified that she did not know father had five
siblings and mother had an aunt living locally. Boyd stated that
she did not ask the parents about other relatives because she
understood that, when she took over the case, the maternal
grandmother was the only relative suitable for RDSS to explore as
a possible custodian. She also believed that Williams would have
investigated or considered any other relatives when she worked on
the case. Boyd did not believe the parents had identified to RDSS
any other relatives of the child to consider for placement.
- 3 -
Mother testified that she believed the maternal grandmother
should get custody of the child. Mother also stated that her Aunt
Gloria "at one time" was willing to take custody of the child.
However, mother did not know Gloria's last name or her address.
Mother testified that the maternal grandmother had informed RDSS
about the possibility of the aunt as a custodian. Mother did not
know any other relatives who were responsible enough to help her
and father raise the child.
Father testified that he was not ready to have custody of the
child and he believed the maternal grandmother should be the
child's custodian. When counsel asked father what he suggested
should be done in the event the child could not stay with the
maternal grandmother, father replied, "That's about all I know
because my parents . . . [have] got my niece and nephews . . . ."
Counsel asked father whether his siblings could assist in raising
the child, and father replied that one sister was unable to assist
due to her poor health and that he was not in touch with his other
siblings.
ANALYSIS
Code § 16.1-283(A) provides that in a termination of parental
rights case "the court shall give a consideration to granting
custody to relatives of the child, including grandparents."
"[B]efore the court grants custody of a child, under the
provisions of Code § 16.1-283(A) the Department has a duty to
produce sufficient evidence so that the court may properly
- 4 -
determine whether there are relatives willing and suitable to take
custody of the child, and to consider such relatives in comparison
to other placement options." Logan v. Fairfax County Dep't of
Human_Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 131, 409 S.E.2d 460, 465 (1991).
Here, RDSS thoroughly investigated the maternal grandmother,
whom the parents identified as a potential custodian for the
child. RDSS presented evidence supporting its determination that
the maternal grandmother was not a suitable custodian for the
child. Thus, the trial court considered evidence as to the
suitability of placing the child with the maternal grandmother
before it ordered the termination of father's parental rights.
Furthermore, although mother identified her Aunt Gloria as
another relative who may be willing to take custody of the child,
mother was unable to provide the aunt's last name or any
information concerning how to contact the aunt. "It is well
established in Virginia that a court will not compel 'a vain and
useless undertaking.'" Hawthorne v. Smythe County Dep't of Soc.
Servs., 33 Va. App. 130, 139, 531 S.E.2d 639, 644 (2000) (citation
omitted).
Moreover, father testified that he did not know any other
relatives who would be willing and suitable to take custody of the
child. He stated that his parents and one of his siblings were
not suitable custodians and that he no longer had contact with the
rest of his siblings. "We do not suggest that the Department has
a duty in every case to investigate the home of every relative of
- 5 -
the children, however remote, as a potential placement." Sauer v.
Franklin County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 18 Va. App. 769, 771, 446
S.E.2d 640, 642 (1994). Therefore, we find that RDSS presented
sufficient evidence for the trial court to consider the
suitability of placing the child with relatives prior to
terminating father's parental rights.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Affirmed.
- 6 -