Bonita Hansberry v. Charlottesville Dept. Social Sv ( 2003 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Frank, Clements and Senior Judge Bray
BONITA HANSBERRY
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record Nos. 0117-03-2 through PER CURIAM
0120-03-2 JUNE 17, 2003
CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Joseph F. Spinella, Judge Designate
(Richard A. Davis, on brief), for appellant.
(Allyson Manson-Davies, Assistant City
Attorney, on brief), for appellee.
In four separately filed and numbered appeals, Bonita
Hansberry (mother) appeals the decision of the circuit court
terminating her parental rights to four of her children: Dashad
Hansberry (Rec. No. 0117-03-2); Rashad Hansberry (Rec. No.
0118-03-2); China Hansberry (Rec. No. 0119-03-2); and Kierra
Hansberry (Rec. No. 0120-03-2). She contends the evidence was
insufficient to support the terminations under subsections (B)
or (C) of Code § 16.1-283. Upon reviewing the record and briefs
of the parties, we conclude that these appeals are without merit.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decisions of the trial court.
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 therefrom in the light most favorable to appellee as
the party prevailing below. McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App.
248, 250, 391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990). So viewed, the evidence
showed that during a course of time, the Charlottesville
Department of Social Services (CDSS) removed four of appellant's
children from her home and placed them in foster care.
The Twins: Rashad and Dashad
On April 21, 2000, three-month-old Rashad was taken to UVA
Hospital after a "Child Health Partnership home visitor" observed
bruising on Rashad's face. Mother said she was not present during
the injury, but she suspected that China, her three-year-old
daughter, was in the crib with Rashad and likely caused the injury
by jumping on him. A CDSS worker recalled that mother tried to
avoid treatment and remove Rashad from the hospital, and she was
reluctant to cooperate with hospital staff. Rashad was released
from the hospital on April 22, 2000. On May 16, 2000, a pediatric
specialist referred Rashad "to an early infant early intervention
program, Babies Can't Wait, for developmental delays." Records
showed that Rashad will also need "physical, occupational, speech
therapy and follow-up care with opthamology due to facial bruising
on 4-21-00."
CDSS prepared a foster care service plan for Rashad on June
1, 2000, with a goal of "Return Home" and a target date of
- 2 -
November 25, 2000. In order to achieve the goal of having
Rashad returned home, mother was required to "create a safe,
stable, maximally supervised home for Rashad and his twin
brother." She was required under the foster care service plan
to "cooperate fully in recommended services," participate in a
substance abuse evaluation, "follow-through with individual
counseling," "maintain stable employment," "participate in
behavorial intervention services" arranged by CDSS for China who
may pose a threat to the younger children, comply with "further
prevention services offered through Family Preservation
Services," "enroll and successfully complete a parenting
education class" by September 2000, provide CDSS with written
documentation of successful completion and attendance in such a
class, maintain contact with the foster care social worker at
least once a month to discuss her case and arrange with CDSS in
advance a visitation schedule.
On April 24, 2000, CDSS took custody of Dashad, Rashad's
twin brother. CDSS alleged that Dashad "is at risk of being
abused and neglected by his mother who has previously been
adjudicated as having abused and neglected another child in her
care." Dashad's June 1, 2000 foster care service plan described
a home visit by a CDSS worker at which the worker saw China hit
Dashad repeatedly on the head. The worker noted that Kierra,
who was four years old at the time, fed Dashad. As with Rashad,
CDSS offered services to mother to help improve the safety and
- 3 -
supervision of the children in her home, including childcare
services and in-home counseling. Dashad's service plan required
that he receive "the same services as his brother Rashad and
. . . he will also require services through Babies Can't Wait,
physical, occupational and speech therapy." Mother was directed
to comply with the same requirements as included in Rashad's
foster care plan. Dashad was placed with the same foster care
family as Rashad.
The record showed that mother had "two other children in
foster care" prior to Rashad and Dashad's removal. "Allan, age
8, is currently receiving services from a children's residential
facility, and Octavius, age 6, is currently in permanent foster
care." At the time of Dashad's removal, mother "refused any
further prevention services for Kierra and China against CDSS'
strong encouragement for her to do so."
On June 16, 2000, the juvenile court found that Rashad and
Dashad were neglected, and it directed CDSS to place them in
foster care. On June 28, 2000, the juvenile court found that
"[r]easonable efforts have been made" by CDSS "to reunite [each]
child with his" parent, and it approved the foster care plans,
adding the following conditions: (1) mother will "successfully
work with a parenting 'coach' or other similar, one-on-one
parenting skills counsel[or];" (2) mother will undergo a
psychological evaluation; and (3) mother "will cooperate with
CDSS in the provision of reasonable services or programs
- 4 -
designed to remedy the conditions that led to foster care"
placement.
On November 15, 2000, CDSS prepared foster care service
plan reviews for the twins, with a program goal "Return Home"
and a target date of June 2001 for goal achievement.
On April 12, 2001, CDSS recommended that the goal of
returning the children home be changed to adoption. On June 1,
2001, CDSS filed petitions to terminate mother's residual
parental rights to the twins.
On June 29, 2001, the juvenile court terminated mother's
residual parental rights based on Code § 16.1-283(B). Mother
appealed to circuit court.
The Girls: China and Kierra
China and Kierra Hansberry were placed in CDSS care on
February 28, 2001, pursuant to Child in Need of Services (CHINS)
petitions and orders. Their initial April 12, 2001 foster care
service plans had a program goal of "Return Home," with a target
date of November 2001. The plans noted founded dispositions of
inadequate supervision for burns occurring to both girls in
1998. In addition, "[t]here have been three other founded
dispositions made to various caretakers involving Ms.
Hansberry's children including physical abuse in 1999,
inadequate supervision in 1999, and sexual abuse in 1997."
Before her removal, China, then three years old, "exhibited
aggressive and out of control behavior," to which mother was
- 5 -
unable to set limits or boundaries. For example, China "will
climb on all types of furniture if given the opportunity."
During an early home visit, a CDSS worker recalled how China
"climbed on cabinets, the stove and cars in the parking lot."
Test results found China to be "developmentally delayed" with
"significant delays in personal/social skills, adaptive skills
and motor skills." "China is quick to hit others when she is
frustrated," and she has a tendency to run out of the house by
herself without supervision. The CDSS case worker reported that
China "witnessed a knife incident between her mother and
biological father."
Kierra received burns in 1998 that resulted in a "founded
disposition of inadequate supervision." At the time of the
April 2001 report, Kierra was five years old and attended
kindergarten. Kierra exhibited signs of aggression and lacked
self-control. She was suspended from kindergarten for kicking a
guest at the school. During the school year, she spent
weeknights "with different 'friends' in the neighborhood" and
"most weekends with her paternal grandmother." In 1999, Kierra
and her brother "witnessed a stabbing murder in her home."
China and Kierra were placed in the same therapeutic foster
home.
Updated foster care service plan reviews prepared in
October 2001, reported that mother "declined to attend" or
- 6 -
participate in parenting classes and failed to maintain regular
contact with CDSS and the social worker from People Places.
In the January 28, 2002 foster care service plan review,
CDSS requested a change in goal from return home to adoption.
On April 18, 2002, CDSS petitioned for termination of
mother's parental rights. The juvenile court terminated
mother's parental rights to China and Kierra on May 14, 2002.
Mother appealed to circuit court.
Trial De Novo
On July 26, 2002, the trial court conducted a trial de novo
on the four petitions to terminate mother's parental rights.
The parties presented and the trial court admitted numerous
documents and reports, including several foster care service
plans and service plan reviews for each child, describing mother
and the children at various times during CDSS's long-standing
relationship with mother. The documents detailed the extensive
services offered to mother and her children over a long period
of time and the progress made by each party.
Dr. Jeffrey Aaron, a clinical psychologist, testified that
he evaluated mother's emotional and cognitive functioning in
August 2000. Mother told Dr. Aaron that she did not want to
participate, but was doing so only because CDSS made her. From
the outset, she "appeared angry and irritable and resistant."
Mother "showed . . . a strong tendency to externalize blame and
responsibility." Test results showed her to have a "full scale
- 7 -
IQ" of 74, "which places her in the borderline range of
cognitive functioning." Persons within that range exhibit
"deficits in their ability to engage in a wide range of
cognitive tasks, particularly those that require complex or
abstract reasoning, inferences about relationships . . . and
related tasks." Although persons functioning within the
"borderline range" can "learn new skills and develop new
abilities," Dr. Aaron opined that their "core deficits" such as
an inability to "apply[] the learning to new situations,
wouldn't be expected to change." Dr. Aaron noted that mother is
"likely to be emotionally reactive and hostile and oppositional,
particularly when under stress." This accounts for her having
difficulty "trusting people, forming relationships, [and] making
use of what other people could offer, in terms of providing
assistance to her or her children." Dr. Aaron opined as
follows:
[Mother's] general pattern of emotional and
personality functioning, her tendency to
deny problems and externalize blame, her
tendency to become hostile and emotionally
reactive, and the cognitive deficits that
I've described, all of these things
together, in my opinion, make it unlikely
that she would be able to adequately
identify and respond to her children's needs
and meet them.
Based on his assessment, Dr. Aaron felt there was "a poor
likelihood" that mother could or would effect a "positive
change." Dr. Aaron believed mother might suffer from "chronic
- 8 -
low grade depression" or "posttraumatic stress disorder."
However, due to her proclivity for under-reporting and denying
symptoms, he was unable to make any such diagnoses.
Carrie Lovette was qualified as an expert in clinical
social work. In November 2000, CDSS referred mother to Lovette
for weekly sessions to help her "learn parenting skills and to
help her learn how to provide a safe environment for her
children." Mother refused to acknowledge that she had anything
to do with the children's removal or that her parenting skills
were deficient, and she characterized the negative reports as
"lies." Mother attended thirteen sessions and missed ten and
currently "refuses to return to therapy." Her last session was
on April 16, 2002. Despite mother's strong feelings for her
children, Lovette opined that mother lacks "any capacity for
empathy for her children's experience and she, again, doesn't
feel that there were any problems in her parenting behaviors
skills before." Mother's denials and refusals to accept help
made it impossible for her to make any progress with therapy or
to become a better parent. Lovette indicated concerns with
mother's "rage and impulse control and honesty."
Robin Warner, a Child Protective Services (CPS) worker, was
appointed to work with mother in April 2000 following Rashad's
removal. Warner advised the trial court that mother received
CDSS services in 1992 "for a variety of concerns at that time,"
such as mother's volatility and failure to provide appropriate
- 9 -
care. Warner recalled a founded complaint for inadequate
supervision in 1998 relating to an incident where Kierra and
China received burns from a hot iron. At the time, mother could
not explain how the girls got burned, so CDSS "added more
services" and "additional goals" to improve mother's parenting,
"her money management, [and] the hygiene of the girls." In
January 1999, CDSS brought in "Children Youth and Family
Services" in order to offer "intensive home services in
[mother's] home in an effort to improve, really try to improve
the environment for the children." Warner recalled two founded
allegations against mother in January and February of 1999. The
February 1999 incident involved the caretaker fleeing the
residence and leaving China and Kierra alone after an occupant
had been stabbed to death. 1
Warner recalled an April 2000 home visit with CDSS worker
Susan Brumfield during which China went into the kitchen,
climbed the stove and was on the burners, which were turned off
at the time. Mother entered the kitchen, got her down and
returned to Warner and Brumfield. Mother did not warn China of
the danger or admonish her not to repeat the conduct. A short
time later, China climbed onto the kitchen sink and turned on
1
Both Lovette and Dr. Aaron recalled mother describing this
incident in which mother discovered a murdered victim in the
home at which she and the children were living. Despite
mother's denial that the event affected her, Dr. Aaron opined
that such an event could have caused or exacerbated "her social
withdrawal and strong mistrust of others."
- 10 -
the faucet. Mother got her down and brought her into the living
room, where China proceeded to throw an apple at Brumfield and
hit Dashad "on the head a number of times." Mother "took
China's hand" while speaking with the CDSS workers, but she "did
not discipline her." When Warner warned mother about China's
aggressiveness towards Dashad, mother sloughed it off as
jealousy. Warner related the many services provided to mother.
A Family Preservation worker regularly visited and worked with
mother in the home, a CASA worker was appointed and evaluations
were done. Warner recalled, "We were really trying to try
whatever we could to improve the situation, so that the girls
could remain in the home and the boys, at some point, could be
brought back." Despite "all of these services that we had put
in, Ms. Hansberry continued to be resistant to the services."
Mother either did not allow the family preservation worker into
her residence or "she would be hostile" and not interact with
the worker. Moreover, mother "was missing appointments," and
she "wasn't making her individual therapy appointments with Ms.
Lovette." Warner warned mother of the importance of cooperating
with the service providers and wrote and provided to mother a
list of things mother needed to do to keep the girls and get the
twins back. Despite mother's initial agreement to cooperate,
"[t]here was no change" in her participation, and concerns about
the two girls persisted, and CPS "continued to get reports"
regarding "concerns" about the children.
- 11 -
Brumfield, a foster care social worker, began working with
mother and her children in October 1999, six months before
Rashad's removal. At that time, there were already several
service providers working with the mother, such as CHIP, CASA,
CPS and Family Preservation Services. Brumfield recalled CDSS's
"continuing concerns of the children needing to [be]
supervised." After China and Kierra were placed in foster care,
"People Places" became the therapeutic foster care agency
contracted to work with mother and the girls. Counseling also
continued, however, mother "refused to be involved in those
services." Brumfield related how she and other CPS workers
"tried to model appropriate parenting skills during visits with
the children, so that [mother] could make use of those skills in
the visits with the girls."
Brumfield discussed the various foster care plans she
prepared, copies of which the trial court admitted. She
explained that CDSS tried "to be very creative" with mother to
try to get her to comply with the plans. She would revise the
plan and change strategies to accommodate mother. To that end,
she enlisted other facilitators to work with mother, such as a
child consultant and a family consultant.
Mother visited the boys thirty-three times and missed
appointments twenty-one times. At one point, Brumfield had to
advise mother to provide advance notice or a doctor's excuse if
- 12 -
she was sick so the foster parents would not have to needlessly
transport the boys to a designated location.
Mother's "lack of progress with foster care plan[s],"
caused CDSS to explore other options. No relatives came
forward, so adoption became the only alternative.
The twins, who are now two years old, are "both
developmentally delayed" and have "been identified [as
requiring] early intervention services [as well as services]
through the school system." Brumfield testified that the twins
are doing well in foster care, and the foster care family that
has had custody since April 2000 is interested in adopting them.
Both girls had behavorial and health problems before foster
care placement. They are presently "doing very well" and have
"made a lot of progress with their foster family." In addition
to attending and benefiting from regular counseling and therapy
sessions, "[t]hey've learned the basics of what it's like to
have regular meals [and] a regular schedule. They've learned
proper nutrition, sleep. Naps. They've both done incredibly
well in school, despite where they were when they came into
care."
Mother never completed a parenting class, nor did she stay
in contact with her case worker and inform her as to employment
or comply with the other requirements in the foster care service
plans. Mother reported "in late January or February" of 2002
that she was living with her father in Garrett Square, but
- 13 -
Brumfield was not allowed access "to make an assessment."
Brumfield averred that she revised and adjusted the foster care
service plans in hopes of obtaining more participation and
cooperation from mother.
Stephanie Bass is a family consultant with the agency
"People Places." She was to "communicate and coordinate" the
services and needs of all parties involved and monitor their
progress. China and Kierra were placed with Bass's agency at
the end of February, 2001. Barbara Gross was the initial family
consultant, and Jason Holland was the child consultant. Bass
replaced Gross in August 2001, however Holland remained
involved. Mother was consistent in attending visits, however,
mother was unable to safely and properly supervise the girls
during visits. Bass and other support staff tried to teach
mother how to discipline and provide time outs through modeling,
but mother was never able to do so independently. Bass also
recalled mother at times making inappropriate comments to the
children. Despite CDSS's efforts, mother still cannot "address
discipline or safety issues." Bass related that mother has
changed her telephone number at least five times, making it
difficult to reach her.
Barba Merriwether is the CASA volunteer for the children.
She made many visits and observations at mother's home, the
foster parents' homes and during visitation between mother and
her children and prepared several reports for the juvenile court
- 14 -
throughout the proceedings. 2 Merriwether noted mother's
inability to perceive or admit any deficiencies in her parenting
skills and documented several instances where mother failed to
discipline and control China.
In a May 2001 report, Merriwether opined "that a permanent
home is in the best interest for the boys," who are thriving in
the foster home. In her June 22, 2001 report, Merriwether
provided the following summary and recommendation regarding the
twins:
In working with Mrs. Hansberry for more
than a year, she has not demonstrated that
she is capable or willing to maintain a safe
and nurturing home for her twin boys. Ms.
Hansberry does not seem to appreciate the
necessity that permanent, long term changes
must take place. I do not believe she fully
understands and comprehends the
responsibility of caring for a child of any
age.
It is my opinion that an adoptive home
is in the best interests for the boys.
The girls are doing very well in foster care also.
Merriwether reported that the foster parents have provided
structure and discipline, and both girls showed much progress
socially and academically. They appeared well-behaved and
happy.
2
Three reports, dated June 23, 2000, May 7, 2001, and June
22, 2001, related to the twins, Rashad and Dashad. Two reports
dated November 7, 2001 and May 10, 2002, related to the girls,
China and Kierra.
- 15 -
Merriwether experienced difficulty contacting mother or
visiting with her to discuss the case. Merriwether reported in
May 2002 that mother "is still unemployed." Merriwether noted
that mother still "does not seem to appreciate or understand"
what she must do, and she "has exhibited little ability or
willingness to improve the situation." Thus, Merriwether
recommended adoption.
In closing argument, the guardian ad litem advised the
trial court that she has been guardian for these children for
"almost four years." 3 The guardian felt that mother "has done
her best," however, her "hostility to . . . social services" and
lack of cooperation prevented her from ameliorating the
conditions that led to the removals. Thus, the guardian "cannot
recommend that [the children] be returned to her."
In deciding to terminate mother's parental rights, the
trial court made the following findings:
It's quite clear to the Court that a plan
was designed for the mother to correct the
situations. And she was instructed on the
plans. And in following the instructions,
in a [span] of over a year, probably about
two years, that she was not able to comply
with the requirements of the plan. And, at
the present time, she has no visible means
of support, has no job, really has not
indicated how she would take care of these
children, four of them, and has offered no
plan to the Court to show how she could do
this in the future. I feel it's in the best
3
On appeal, the guardian ad litem did not file a brief on
behalf of the children in this case.
- 16 -
interests of the children that they not be
returned to her.
By order dated December 11, 2002, the trial court
terminated mother's residual parental rights.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, we will not disturb a trial court's findings
unless they are plainly wrong or without evidentiary support.
See Roanoke City Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Heide, 35 Va. App. 328,
336, 544 S.E.2d 890, 894 (2001).
In closing argument at the July 26, 2002 de novo hearing,
mother's attorney stated: "What needs to be shown here is
whether or not [mother] has been able to remedy the conditions
which led to these children coming into care in the first
place." Continuing, mother's attorney argued:
And she submits that either there was
nothing to remedy in the first place or that
she has done so, but she's able to take care
of these kids.
As to the girls, mother's attorney questioned the basis of
removal as stated in the petition of
July of 2000, relating to serious concerns
about the safety and well-being of Kierra
and her sister. That's what led to these
girls coming into care.
And realistically, I think what –
[mother] wants all four of the kids back,
but I think her position is stronger with
regard to the two girls. I think she can
take care of those two girls. There's a
question about them being removed in the
first place. That is her position. With
regard to the twins, the youngest, those are
- 17 -
her children. Again, the removals arose out
of an injury suffered by Rashad. We can't
dispute that. It's reflected in the medical
records. But it's ideology [sic] where it
came from. It clearly remains unknown. And
[mother] doesn't believe that it was
occasion to anything [sic] due to her
neglect or lack of care for the children.
Similarly, Dashad, we think in purview [sic]
is just a reaction. Social services had
previously removed two of her kids already.
And they were primed, locked and ready to go
essentially for just about any reason to
take these children.
On December 11, 2002, the trial court entered final orders
in the four cases heard and argued on July 26, 2002. Mother's
attorney endorsed each order, "Seen Objected To."
In her opening brief, mother contends the
evidentiary record plainly shows that CDSS
failed to make reasonable and appropriate
efforts to provide medical, mental health or
other rehabilitative services and support to
the end that Ms. Hansberry could make
additional substantial progress towards
eliminating the Conditions. Such efforts
are a condition precedent to the trial
court's terminating [mother's] residual
parental rights. [Mother] contends that
[she] remedied substantially the Conditions
and made substantial progress towards
eliminating such Conditions. However, to
the extent [mother] was unable to make more
substantial progress, [mother] has good
cause due to CDSS's failure to make
reasonable and appropriate efforts to
provide such services.
Mother never argued to the trial court that CDSS failed to
make reasonable or appropriate efforts, nor did she contend
below that there was good cause for her failure to follow
through or respond to CDSS's rehabilitative efforts.
- 18 -
"[E]ndorsing a[n order] 'seen and objected to' does not
preserve an issue for appeal unless the record further reveals
that the issue was properly raised for consideration by the
trial court." Konefal v. Konefal, 18 Va. App. 612, 615, 446
S.E.2d 153, 155 (1994). "No ruling of the trial court . . .
will be considered as a basis for reversal unless the objection
was stated together with the grounds therefor at the time of the
ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of
Appeals to attain the ends of justice." Rule 5A:18.
Because mother filed no post-judgment pleadings raising the
good cause defense, we are precluded from addressing that
argument on appeal. See Rule 5A:18. Moreover, because the
record contains abundant evidence to support the trial court's
finding that CDSS made reasonable and appropriate efforts to
provide services and because the record fails to contain
sufficient, credible evidence establishing good cause for
mother's failure to respond or follow through with those
services, the record does not reflect any reason to invoke the
good cause or ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18.
Therefore, the only issues argued and preserved by mother
were those raised in her closing argument, namely, (1) there was
insufficient evidence of harm or danger to remove the children
in the first place; (2) there was nothing for mother to remedy;
and/or (3) mother has remedied any such conditions and can now
care for the children. The only issue raised at trial and
- 19 -
argued in mother's brief is whether there was sufficient
evidence that mother failed to follow through with services and
remedy the situation requiring removal. Thus, we limit our
analysis to that issue.
Rashad and Dashad
The trial court terminated mother's parental rights to
Rashad and Dashad pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B), which provides
in pertinent part:
The residual parental rights of a parent or
parents of a child found by the court to be
neglected or abused and placed in foster
care as a result of (i) court commitment
. . . may be terminated if the court finds,
based upon clear and convincing evidence,
that it is in the best interests of the
child and that:
1. The neglect or abuse suffered by
such child presented a serious and
substantial threat to his life, health or
development; and
2. It is not reasonably likely that
the conditions which resulted in such
neglect or abuse can be substantially
corrected or eliminated so as to allow the
child's safe return to his parent or parents
within a reasonable period of time. In
making this determination, the court shall
take into consideration the efforts made to
rehabilitate the parent or parents by any
public or private social, medical, mental
health or other rehabilitative agencies
prior to the child's initial placement in
foster care.
Viewed in the light most favorable to CDSS, clear and
convincing evidence proved that: (1) the twins "were found by
the court to be neglected or abused" and were placed into foster
- 20 -
care pursuant to court commitment, Code § 16.1-283(B); (2) CDSS
had, prior to the twins' placement in foster care, made efforts
to rehabilitate mother, Code § 16.1-283(B)(2); (3) termination
"is in the best interests of the child," Code § 16.1-283(B); (4)
the "neglect or abuse suffered by such child presented a serious
and substantial threat to his life, health or development," Code
§ 16.1-283(B)(1); and (5) "[i]t is not reasonably likely that
the conditions which resulted in such neglect or abuse can be
substantially corrected or eliminated so as to allow the safe
return to his parent or parents within a reasonable period of
time," Code § 16.1-283(B)(2). That mother "without good cause,
ha[d] not responded to or followed through with appropriate,
available and reasonable rehabilitative efforts on the part of
social, medical, mental health or other rehabilitative agencies
designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent the neglect or abuse of
the child," constituted prima facie evidence "of the conditions
set forth in subdivision B 2." Code § 16.1-283(B)(2)(c). At
the time of trial, the twins had been in foster care over two
years. Not only was there a lack of evidence that mother
substantially corrected or eliminated the conditions leading to
foster care, but CDSS presented evidence that mother refused to
acknowledge any deficiencies existed and appeared to thwart
CDSS's attempts to provide services to remediate her parenting
and supervisory skills.
- 21 -
CDSS presented sufficient clear and convincing evidence to
support the trial court's findings and rulings. Moreover,
mother did not rebut the prima facie case established by CDSS.
Therefore, the evidentiary requirements of Code § 16.1-283(B)(2)
had been met, and the trial court's findings and judgment were
not plainly wrong or without evidence to support them.
China and Kierra
The trial court terminated mother's parental rights to
China and Kierra pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C), which provides
in pertinent part:
The residual parental rights of a parent or
parents of a child placed in foster care as
a result of court commitment, . . . may be
terminated if the court finds, based upon
clear and convincing evidence, that it is in
the best interests of the child and that:
* * * * * * *
2. The 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. Proof
that the parent or parents, without good
cause, have failed or been unable to make
substantial progress towards elimination of
the conditions which led to or required
continuation of the child's foster care
placement in accordance with their
obligations under and within the time limits
or goals set forth in a foster care plan
filed with the court or any other plan
- 22 -
jointly designed and agreed to by the parent
or parents and a public or private social,
medical, mental health or other
rehabilitative agency shall constitute prima
facie evidence of this condition. The court
shall take into consideration the prior
efforts of such agencies to rehabilitate the
parent or parents prior to the placement of
the child in foster care.
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to CDSS,
proved by clear and convincing evidence both (1) that CDSS made
"reasonable and appropriate efforts" to help mother remedy the
conditions "which led to or required continuation of the [China
and Kierra's] foster care placement" and (2) that mother,
"without good cause" was "unwilling or unable within a
reasonable period of time not to exceed twelve months" from the
date of placement in foster care failed "to substantially
remedy" those conditions. Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). In reaching
this conclusion, the trial court took "into consideration the
prior efforts" of CDSS "to rehabilitate" mother. Id.
Pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), CDSS presented prima
facie evidence that mother "without good cause, ha[s] failed or
been unable to make substantial progress towards elimination of
the conditions which led to or required continuation of [China
and Kierra's] foster care placement in accordance with [he]r
obligations under and within the time limits or goals set forth
in [the] foster care plan[s] filed with the court." Id.
Moreover, mother did not rebut that prima facie evidence.
Therefore, the evidentiary requirements of Code § 16.1-283(C)(2)
- 23 -
had been met, and the trial court's findings and judgment were
not plainly wrong or without evidence to support them.
Accordingly, the decisions of the trial court are summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 24 -