Derrick Horton v. City of Hampton Department of Social Services ( 2006 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Frank, Clements and Haley
DERRICK HORTON
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 2076-05-1 PER CURIAM
FEBRUARY 28, 2006
CITY OF HAMPTON DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON
Wilford Taylor, Jr., Judge
(M. Woodrow Griffin, Jr., on brief), for appellant.
(Lesa J. Yeatts, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence A. Martin,
Guardian ad litem for the child; Coyle & Martin, on brief), for
appellee.
Derrick Horton (father) appeals the trial court’s order changing the goal of the permanency
planning order for his daughter from “return to parent” to “adoption.” On appeal, father contends
the trial court erred by changing the goal to adoption and refusing to adopt the proposed concurrent
goal of placement with relative. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude
that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court.
Rule 5A:27.
Background
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).
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
The child went into foster care directly from the hospital after her birth in October 2003.
Father was incarcerated at the time daughter was born and was incarcerated at the time of the June
7, 2005 hearing of this matter. Father has never provided support for daughter or attempted to
contact her, although he had limited contact with several social workers. Mother visited daughter
on occasion and brought a paternal relative to some of the visitations. The Court Report in the
record states that the only relative to come forward and follow through with pursuing custody of
daughter was the maternal grandmother, who resides in New York. After a home study, the
Department of Social Services denied placement of daughter with the maternal grandmother. The
guardian ad litem opined that it was in daughter’s best interest to be adopted. The trial court found
that there was no relative with whom the child could be placed and changed the goal of the
permanency planning order to adoption.
Analysis
Proof by a preponderance of the evidence is the appropriate standard in a case involving the
modification of foster care plans pursuant to Code § 16.1-282. Padilla v. Norfolk Div. of Soc.
Servs., 22 Va. App. 643, 645, 472 S.E.2d 648, 649 (1996).
“When addressing matters concerning a child . . . the paramount consideration of a trial
court is the child’s best interests.” Logan, 13 Va. App. at 128, 409 S.E.2d at 463. “In matters of a
child’s welfare, trial courts are vested with broad discretion in making the decisions necessary to
guard and to foster a child’s best interests.” Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 328, 387 S.E.2d 794,
795 (1990). On appeal, we presume that the trial court “thoroughly weighed all the evidence, . . .
and made its determination based on the child’s best interests.” Id. at 329, 387 S.E.2d at 796.
Furthermore, “[w]here, as here, the trial court heard the evidence ore tenus, its finding is entitled to
great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to
-2-
support it.” Martin v. Pittsylvania County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20, 348 S.E.2d 13,
16 (1986).
The record supports the trial court’s findings that there is no relative with whom daughter
can be placed and the best interests of the child will be served by changing the permanency planning
order goal to adoption. No relative other than the maternal grandmother pursued custody of
daughter. In addition, father has never attempted to contact daughter and has not planned for her
future in any way. “‘[P]ast actions and relationships over a meaningful period serve as good
indicators of what the future may be expected to hold.’” Linkous v. Kingery, 10 Va. App. 45, 56,
390 S.E.2d 188, 194 (1990) (citation omitted). Furthermore, daughter has been in foster care her
entire life. “It is clearly not in the best interests of a child to spend a lengthy period of time waiting
to find out when, or even if, a parent will be capable of resuming his responsibilities.” Kaywood v.
Halifax County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1990).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the judgment. See Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
-3-