Willetta Blount Holmes v. City of Richmond Department of Social Services ( 2014 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Alston, Decker and Senior Judge Coleman
UNPUBLISHED
WILLETTA BLOUNT HOLMES
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 0282-14-2 PER CURIAM
SEPTEMBER 9, 2014
CITY OF RICHMOND DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Margaret P. Spencer, Judge
(Charles R. Samuels, on brief), for appellant.
(Kate O’Leary; Marc E. Yeaker, Guardian ad litem for the minor
children; Office of the City Attorney, on brief), for appellee.
Willetta Blount Holmes, mother, appeals an order terminating her parental rights to her
children, S.H. and E.B., and approving a permanent goal of placement with relatives for her
children, Al.B. and Av.B. Mother argues the trial court erred in: (1) “holding that the Richmond
Department of Social Services [(RDSS)] complied with its affirmative duty mandated by . . . Code
§ 16.1-283(A) to investigate all reasonable options for placement of a child with relatives as a
condition precedent to entering an order terminating the residual parental rights” of mother
regarding S.H. and E.B.; (2) holding that mother failed to substantially remedy the conditions which
led to or required the continuation of the foster care placement for the four children; (3) holding
mother failed to maintain continuing contact with and provide or substantially plan for the future of
the children for a period of six months after the placement of the children in foster care; and
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
(4) admitting into evidence Dr. Craig S. King’s February 6, 2013 confidential psychological
evaluation of mother.
Mother appealed to the trial court the juvenile and domestic relations district court’s orders
terminating mother’s parental rights to S.H. and E.B. and approving relative placement for Al.B.
and Av.B. The trial court heard evidence and argument on January 7, 2014. On January 13, 2014,
the trial court entered an order terminating mother’s parental rights to S.H. and E.B. and approving
relative placement for Al.B. and Av.B. On February 19, 2014, the trial court entered form orders
entitled “Order for Involuntary Termination of Residual Parental Rights” for the children E.B. and
S.H., citing Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) and (2) as the bases for the terminations.
On June 6, 2014, mother filed in the trial court the transcript of the January 7, 2014 trial
court hearing. Rule 5A:8(a) provides that a transcript is part of the record and can be considered on
appeal when it is filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court “within 60 days after entry of the
final judgment.” Thus, the January 7, 2014 transcript was not timely filed and we cannot consider
it.
We have reviewed the record and the opening brief. We conclude that a transcript or
written statement of facts is indispensable to a determination of the assignments of error raised
on appeal. See Anderson v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 506, 508-09, 413 S.E.2d 75, 76-77
(1992); Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 99-100, 341 S.E.2d 400, 402 (1986).
An appellant has the responsibility to provide a complete record to the appellate court.
Twardy v. Twardy, 14 Va. App. 651, 658, 419 S.E.2d 848, 852 (1992) (en banc). Since mother
provided an insufficient record to this Court, we are unable to review her assignments of error.
See Jenkins v. Winchester Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 12 Va. App. 1178, 1185, 409 S.E.2d 16, 20
(1991) (“In the absence [of a sufficient record], we will not consider the point.); see also Barrett
v. Barrett, 1 Va. App. 378, 380, 339 S.E.2d 208, 210 (1986) (holding that when a transcript is
-2-
indispensable to the determination of the issues on appeal, the timely filing of a transcript is
jurisdictional). Therefore, we summarily affirm the judgment of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
-3-