Melvin Sprouse v. Orange County Department of Social Services ( 2007 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Frank, McClanahan and Senior Judge Willis
MELVIN SPROUSE
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 1329-06-2 PER CURIAM
MARCH 6, 2007
ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY
Daniel R. Bouton, Judge
(Christian A. Brashear, on brief), for appellant. Appellant
submitting on brief.
(Robert F. Beard; Michael J. Hallahan, II, Guardian ad litem, for the
minor child, on brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad
litem submitting on brief.
Melvin Sprouse appeals the trial court’s decision terminating his residual parental rights to
his minor son, D.M., pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) and 16.1-283(C)(2). Finding no error, we
affirm.
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and grant
to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Logan v. Fairfax County Dep’t of
Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 462 (1991). “‘[T]ermination of [residual]
parental rights is a grave, drastic and irreversible action.’” Helen W. v. Fairfax County Dep’t of
Human Dev., 12 Va. App. 877, 883, 407 S.E.2d 25, 28-29 (1991) (quoting Lowe v. Dept. of Pub.
Welfare of the City of Richmond, 231 Va. 277, 280, 343 S.E.2d 70, 72 (1986)). When
considering termination of a parent’s residual parental rights to a child, “the paramount
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
consideration of a trial court is the child’s best interests.” Logan, 13 Va. App. at 128, 409 S.E.2d
at 463. On review, “[a] trial court is presumed to have thoroughly weighed all the evidence,
considered the statutory requirements, and made its determination based on the child’s best
interests.” Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 329, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990). “The trial court’s
judgment, ‘when based on evidence heard ore tenus, will not be disturbed on appeal unless
plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.’” Logan, 13 Va. App. at 128, 409 S.E.2d at 463
(quoting Peple v. Peple, 5 Va. App. 414, 422, 364 S.E.2d 232, 237 (1988)).
In light of these standards, and based upon our review of the record (including the trial
court’s findings as reflected in its April 27, 2006 order for involuntary termination of residual
parental rights, the written statement of facts, and the trial court’s written additions to the record
made in accordance with Rule 5A:8), we conclude that the trial court’s decision finding that there
was clear and convincing evidence to support termination of Sprouse’s residual parental rights to
D.M. under Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) and 16.1-283(C)(2), as being in the child’s best interests, was
not plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s
decision.
Affirmed.
-2-