Tai Sharrock v. Shenandoah Valley Department of Social Services ( 2012 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Frank, Huff and Senior Judge Haley
UNPUBLISHED
TAI SHARROCK
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1033-12-3 PER CURIAM
OCTOBER 9, 2012
SHENANDOAH VALLEY DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WAYNESBORO
Humes J. Franklin, Jr., Judge
(S. Scott Baker, on brief), for appellant.
(James B. Glick; Stephanie Cangin, Guardian ad litem for the
minor child; Vellines, Glick & Whitesell, P.L.C., on brief), for
appellee.
Tai Sharrock (hereinafter “mother”) appeals the termination of her residual parental rights
to her child, T.T. She maintains the trial court erred in finding that the Shenandoah Valley
Department of Social Services (hereinafter “DSS”) met its burden by clear and convincing
evidence to terminate mother’s residual parental rights to her child.
Mother presents no argument in support of her assignment of error. Instead, she offers
only a conclusory statement that DSS “failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that
termination is in the best interests of the child, and the requisite statute [§ ]16.1-283.”
“Statements unsupported by argument, authority, or citations to the record do not merit appellate
consideration. We will not search the record for errors in order to interpret appellant’s
contention and correct deficiencies in a brief.” Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App 53, 56, 415
S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992).
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Furthermore, mother has failed to include a transcript of the termination hearing or a
statement of facts in the record on appeal. As mother maintains DSS failed to present sufficient
evidence to support termination of her residual parental rights, either a transcript or a statement
of facts is indispensable to a determination of the assignment of error. 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). Accordingly, we
summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
-2-