Samia Mills v. Michael L. Mills and Marcia B. Mills ( 2000 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judge Annunziata and
Senior Judge Duff
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
SAMIA MILLS
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0884-99-4 JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA
APRIL 4, 2000
MICHAEL L. MILLS AND
MARCIA B. MILLS
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STAFFORD COUNTY
James W. Haley, Jr., Judge
Dennis E. Ahearn for appellant.
Joseph A. Vance, IV (Joseph A. Vance, IV &
Associates, on brief), for appellees.
The issue to be addressed in this appeal arises from a
decision of the trial court based on its finding that Samia
Mills, the mother of O.M., a minor child, unreasonably withheld
her consent for adoption of O.M. by the appellees, contrary to
the child's best interests. The mother contends that the
evidence presented to the trial court did not clearly and
convincingly demonstrate that the adoption was in O.M.'s best
interest. We disagree and affirm.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
FACTS
Under familiar principles, we review the evidence on appeal
in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed below,
giving it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom.
See Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 328, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795
(1990). O.M. was born on September 23, 1991 to Timothy and
Samia Mills. On November 25, 1991, she was placed in foster
care with the appellees, her paternal uncle and his wife, as a
result of the mother's mental illness and the father's inability
to parent the child at the time. She has been with her adoptive
parents ever since, and has never spent the night with either of
her biological parents.
A Report of Investigation prepared by the Stafford County
Department of Social Services recommended that a final order of
adoption be entered. The child's counselor also recommended
that visitation be terminated and that adoption be granted.
Finally, the court-appointed psychologist who prepared an
Attachment and Bonding Evaluation found that there was neither
attachment nor bonding between O.M. and her mother.
The mother is a Palestinian native of Israel, where she was
a professor of biochemistry. She and Timothy Mills were married
in 1990, after she came to teach at Johns Hopkins University.
Both before and subsequent to the birth of O.M., the mother was
committed to a hospital for treatment of paranoid schizophrenia
- 2 -
and placed on medication. Although she is in remission of
positive symptoms, she continues to suffer a degree of mental
impairment.
ANALYSIS
"An adoption over objection by a natural parent should not
be granted except upon clear and convincing evidence that the
adoption would be in a child's best interest and that it would
be detrimental to continue the natural parent-child
relationship." Frye v. Spotte, 4 Va. App. 530, 532, 359 S.E.2d
315, 317 (1987) (citing Robinette v. Keene, 2 Va. App. 578, 347
S.E.2d 156 (1986)). "The trial court's decision, when based
upon an ore tenus hearing, is entitled to great weight and will
not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without
evidence to support it." Id. at 537, 359 S.E.2d at 319-20.
Because we review the evidence in the light most favorable to
the party prevailing below, all evidence in conflict with the
appellees' evidence must be disregarded. See Garst v.
Obenchain, 196 Va. 664, 668, 85 S.E.2d 207, 210 (1955); Rusty's
Welding Service, Inc. v. Gibson, 29 Va. App. 119, 131, 510
S.E.2d 255, 261 (1999). Furthermore, "[i]t is well settled that
issues of credibility and the weight of the evidence are within
the unique province of the trier of fact." Parish v. Spaulding,
26 Va. App. 566, 575, 496 S.E.2d 91, 95 (1998). "When weighing
the evidence, the fact finder is not required to accept entirely
- 3 -
either party's account of the facts." Winfield v. Urquhart, 25
Va. App. 688, 696, 492 S.E.2d 464, 467 (1997) (citation
omitted). The fact finder need not accept the testimony of a
non-custodial parent simply because it provides the only account
of certain facts alleged. See id. at 696, 492 S.E.2d at 468
(citations omitted).
In determining whether valid consent to adoption is
withheld contrary to the best interest of the child, the court
must consider the child's best interests vis à vis both the
prospective adoptive parents and the parent whose consent to the
adoption is being withheld. See Hickman v. Futty, 25 Va. App.
420, 432, 489 S.E.2d 232, 237 (1997). Code § 63.1-225.1
requires determination of "whether the failure to grant the
petition for adoption would be detrimental to the child."
Where the evidence reveals that adoption
would be in the child’s best interests and
the continued relationship with the
non-consenting parent would be detrimental,
it follows that the failure to grant the
adoption would be detrimental to the child.
In such a case, the conclusion that consent
is withheld contrary to the child's best
interests is compelled.
Hickman, 25 Va. App. at 432, 489 S.E.2d at 237-38. Among the
factors which the court must consider to determine detriment to
the child which a failure to grant the petition would occasion
are:
the birth parent(s)' efforts to obtain or
maintain legal and physical custody of the
- 4 -
child, whether the birth parent(s)' efforts
to assert parental rights were thwarted by
other people, the birth parents(s)' ability
to care for the child, the age of the child,
the quality of any previous relationship
between the birth parent(s) and the child
and between the birth parent(s) and any
other minor children, the duration and
suitability of the child's present custodial
environment and the effect of a change of
physical custody on the child.
Code § 63.1-225.1; see also Hickman, 25 Va. App. at 426, 489
S.E.2d at 235.
The trial judge considered all the required statutory
factors, and the evidence in this case supports his findings.
Evidence that the mother is able to care for O.M. is minimal, at
best. The child is not allowed to live with the mother at her
current residence in accordance with the residential complex
rules. The mother's mental illness limits her ability to
properly parent the child. O.M. has not been in the care of the
mother in almost eight years, although numerous hearings were
held in which the mother petitioned for the right to regain
custody of her children 1 and to modify the terms of her
visitation. In no instance was placement of the child awarded
to the mother.
Although the mother testified that the adoptive parents
have thwarted her efforts to maintain contact with O.M., it is
1
O.M. was born with a fraternal twin, whose custody is not
at issue in this case.
- 5 -
clear from the record that the mother's mental illness is the
predominating factor in the failure not only to establish
contact, but also to establish a bonded relationship with the
child. The absence of any meaningful relationship between O.M.
and her biological mother was documented and emphasized by the
licensed clinical social worker, Karin L.M. Brown, and by the
psychologist who testified in the case, Dr. Susan D. Rosebro.
The former filed a report admitted into evidence which indicated
that O.M. did not desire contact with her mother and that there
was "virtually no relationship" between O.M. and her mother.
Brown recommended permanent termination of all visitation with
the biological parents and completion of the adoption. The
latter witness prepared an Attachment and Bonding Evaluation
pursuant to the court's order. It was admitted into evidence
and showed that "the relationship between Samia Mills and . . .
[O.M.] is dysfunctional . . . ." Rosebro likewise recommended
termination of visitation, stating that "[f]orcing . . . [O.M.]
to have contact with [her] biological mother in the absence of
any attachment and bonding in the mother-child relationship
poses significant psychological risks to [O.M.'s] current health
and emotional development." Moreover, the trial court was
entitled to reject the mother's testimony concerning the
appellees' alleged efforts at thwarting her visitation. See
Winfield, 25 Va. App. at 696, 492 S.E.2d at 468.
- 6 -
Further evidence in the case established that the child is
doing well in the home of the adoptive parents, feels secure
there, and is attached to her adoptive parents. She is doing
well in school, and has progressed sufficiently to eliminate the
need for further counseling.
Because the evidence admitted at the hearing established
clearly and convincingly that O.M.'s placement in the home of
her adoptive parents was in her best interest and that a
continued relationship with her biological mother would be
detrimental to her health and emotional development, we affirm
the trial court's decision. Furthermore, as the court was
entitled to reject the mother's claim that the adoptive parents
had thwarted her attempts to maintain contact with O.M., all the
factors established in Code § 63.1-225.1 appear to have been
weighed and considered by the court. We find no error.
Affirmed.
- 7 -