Angela Blalock v. Chesterfield-Colonial Heights Department of Social Services ( 2024 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
UNPUBLISHED
Present: Chief Judge Decker, Judge Chaney and Senior Judge Humphreys
Argued by videoconference
ANGELA BLALOCK, ET AL.
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 2054-23-2 JUDGE VERNIDA R. CHANEY
NOVEMBER 19, 2024
CHESTERFIELD-COLONIAL HEIGHTS
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS
Steven B. Novey, Judge
Kevin Purnell; Jean M. McKeen (Kevin D. Purnell, PLLC;
McKeenLaw, PLLC, on brief), for appellants.
Emily C.R. Bittner (J. Kristen Thornbrugh, Guardian ad litem for the
minor children; County Attorney’s Office, Chesterfield County;
Thornbrugh Law Firm, PLC, on brief), for appellee.
Angela (mother) and Gerald (father) Blalock appeal the circuit court’s orders terminating
their parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2).1 The parents argue that the circuit court erred in
finding that they failed to remedy the conditions that led to the children’s foster care placement
within a reasonable period of time. Further, they contend that the Chesterfield-Colonial Heights
Department of Social Services (the Department) did not make reasonable and appropriate efforts to
assist them in remedying those conditions. This Court disagrees and affirms the judgment of the
circuit court.
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
1
This dispute involves two children: B.B., the younger child, and C.C., the older. The
circuit court terminated mother’s rights as to both children, but only terminated father’s rights as
to the younger, the only one of which was his biological child.
BACKGROUND2
In January 2022, the Department received notice for foster care prevention services from
the Colonial Heights Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court of child in need of
supervision (CHINS) petitions for the Blalocks’ two children, then 7 and 13 years old. The JDR
court deemed the children in need of supervision because they had missed 96 of 152 school days.
Additionally, the children’s medical and mental health needs “were not being addressed,” and
they had witnessed domestic violence between mother and father.
Following the CHINS hearing, the Department attempted to complete a comprehensive
family assessment with mother on nine separate occasions, and offered the family multiple
services, including educational testing for the children. Mother canceled the assessments “citing
lack of internet access, lack of water in the home due to a disconnection, inability to locate
documents due to a recent move, and health emergencies.” The Department eventually made an
unannounced visit to the home during a school day and found the parents and the children
sleeping. Despite mother’s claims that she homeschooled the children, she was unable to access
for the Department the educational website that the children used to complete schoolwork.
In March 2022, the JDR court held CHINS review hearings for both children. During the
hearing, mother tested positive for alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, and buprenorphine. Father tested
positive for alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine. The JDR court ordered both children be placed in
the sole legal and physical custody of the older child’s paternal aunt. As the parties were leaving
the CHINS hearing, however, mother interacted with the older child, who then became
2
“On appeal, ‘we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party below, in this case the Department.’” Joyce v. Botetourt Cnty.
Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 75 Va. App. 690, 695 (2022) (quoting Farrell v. Warren Cnty. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs., 59 Va. App. 375, 386 (2012)). “To the extent that this opinion discusses facts found in
sealed documents in the record, we unseal only those facts.” Brown v. Virginia, 302 Va. 234,
240 n.2 (2023).
-2-
“observably upset” and “verbally aggressive towards all parties present.” The older child refused
to leave the courthouse with the paternal aunt, who then declined to accept custody of the
children. Thus the Department assumed custody of the children.
Following the children’s removal, the initial foster care goal was for them to return home.
The Department required parents to maintain a stable home environment and income with “no
lapses in utilities.” Mother also had to undergo psychological evaluations and follow any
resulting recommendations, engage in parenting support services, and have regular supervised
visitations with the children. The Department required the parents to submit to regular drug
screenings, participate in ongoing substance abuse counseling, and maintain sobriety.
The parents each underwent substance abuse assessments. Mother was diagnosed with
alcohol abuse, and father was diagnosed with alcohol abuse, cocaine abuse, and cannabis abuse.
They completed 12 weeks of substance abuse counseling, but did not continue with further
treatment, and both denied having problems with substance abuse. During an April 2022 JDR
court hearing, father tested positive for alcohol, and mother tested positive for alcohol and
buprenorphine. In September 2022, mother tested positive for cocaine and two cocaine
metabolites. In October 2022 and January 2023, father tested positive for cocaine and “an
unusually high level” of cocaine metabolite. In February 2023, both parents tested positive for
alcohol. Mother again tested positive for alcohol in October 2023.
Parents engaged in 15 sessions of parent support services in July 2022, but ultimately
were discharged for 30 consecutive days of non-attendance, “reportedly due to scheduling
problems.” Father completed the psychological assessment in September 2022 and was
recommended to engage in continuous individual therapy. Although father began therapy, he
ended it in November 2022. At the same time, mother underwent the psychological assessment
-3-
and was recommended to engage in continuing individual therapy. Like father, mother began
therapy but discontinued it. Both parents claimed to have trouble scheduling appointments.
The parents did not establish documentation of stable income to the Department. When
the children first entered foster care, father reported that he worked at Walmart but was on
short-term disability. The Department did not ever receive documentation confirming his
disability. He remained unemployed through the pendency of the foster care case. In that time,
he did not apply for Medicaid or extended disability benefits.
At the outset of foster care, mother reported that she was unemployed. At trial, mother
reported that she formerly worked at McDonald’s as a general manager. She provided the
Department with three pay stubs reflecting that fact. However, she quit in March 2023 “to give
herself more time to complete the Departments requirements to having her children returned.”
The parents claimed they had received an inheritance which they used to support themselves, but
they did not provide any documentation to substantiate that claim.
The Department conducted a scheduled home visit in April 2023 to determine if the
parents’ home was suitable for the children’s return. The residence smelled of urine, and
Department officials observed gnats and cockroaches inside the residence. There were stains in
the bathtub from sewage backup. The Department noticed “cat urine, blood, [and] diarrhea on
the windowsills” of the younger child’s bedroom. In the older child’s bedroom—at that point
being used as the parents’ own room—the floor was covered with trash, clothes, and cigarette
butts. The Department worker who visited the home had to walk atop the trash to get into the
room. There was a dog in the home with a history of biting people. The Department found no
evidence of preparation for the children’s return; for example, there were no beds for the
children.
-4-
At the beginning of their foster care placement, each child presented with numerous
physical and mental health concerns. Before entering foster care, the older child was diagnosed
with ADHD and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. He had excessive absences from
school—as many as 57 in one school year. The younger child had enlarged tonsils, and she
needed corrective surgery on her right eye. She read below grade level and missed 58 days of
the first grade.
During their foster care placement, the children saw their needs met. They both attended
school. They both had ongoing medical appointments, including a physical and immunizations.
After entering foster care, the older child underwent a psychological evaluation and began
attending regular therapy appointments. While in foster care, the younger child “achieve[d] a
state of normalcy,” excelled in school, and participated in a number of community activities.
The younger child received necessary medical care for her tonsils and eyes.
The Department petitioned for termination of both parents’ parental rights, which, the
JDR court granted in June 2023. The parents appealed to the circuit court. During the circuit
court hearing, Rebecca Bowman, a Department family service specialist, testified that after the
children entered foster care, the Department assigned a parent support worker to help the parents
with scheduling appointments for therapy and medical needs, assist with housing and cleaning
the residence, and “making a plan to address each of [the requirements] step by step.” The
parents, however, were discharged from the service for noncompliance before they could benefit
from the assistance of the parent support worker. The Department also provided the parents with
case management services to help with “various topics relating to parenting [and] relating to
support for substance use.” The parents were also discharged from that program for
noncompliance. Bowman acknowledged that the Department did not pay for additional
substance abuse screens and counseling. The Department also did not provide funds to parents
-5-
for extermination and beds for the children because mother had indicated that she and father
would provide them.
Mother testified that after the Department’s scheduled home visit, she and father had
cleaned the home and prepared it for the children’s return. However, the parents did not inform
the Department of the improvements they had made. Mother also testified that she was
unemployed for a time, but that she had obtained new employment at a local gas station. As for
her alcohol use, mother denied knowing why she tested positive for alcohol in several of the
urine tests and testified that she was seeking medical help to determine the cause.
Father testified that he was not able to work due to diabetes. He further testified that he
received short-term disability benefits for a time, but had not yet been approved for social
security disability benefits. Father testified that, until then, he and mother were using the
inheritance he received to pay their living expenses.
After considering the evidence, the circuit court terminated mother’s parental rights to
both children, and father’s rights to the younger child, under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2).3 The
parents appeal.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, the parents argue that the evidence failed to show that they were, without
good cause, unwilling or unable to substantially remedy the conditions that led to the children’s
foster care placement. They assert that they sought substance abuse treatment and that most of
father’s drug screens were negative. The parents also argue that they had a stable home and
income, and underwent therapy and parenting training. Even if they had failed to remedy the
3
The Department changed the foster care goal to adoption. In the final order, the circuit
court ordered a later annual review of the goal.
-6-
conditions that led to the children’s foster care placement, they argue, the Department did not
make “reasonable and appropriate efforts” to assist them.
Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) authorizes a court to terminate parental rights if:
The parent or parents, without good cause, have been unwilling or
unable within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 12 months
from the date the child was placed in foster care to remedy
substantially the conditions which led to or required continuation
of the child’s foster care placement, notwithstanding the
reasonable and appropriate efforts of social, medical, mental health
or other rehabilitative agencies to such end.
“[S]ubsection C termination decisions hinge not so much on the magnitude of the problem that
created the original danger to the child[ren], but on the demonstrated failure of the parent to make
reasonable changes” to the circumstances that led to the children’s removal from the home. Yafi v.
Stafford Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 69 Va. App. 539, 552 (2018) (first alteration in original) (quoting
Toms v. Hanover Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 257, 271 (2005)). “On review of a trial court’s
decision regarding the termination of parental rights, we presume the trial court ‘thoroughly
weighed all the evidence, considered the statutory requirements, and made its determination based
on the child’s best interests.’” Joyce v. Botetourt Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 75 Va. App. 690, 699
(2022) (quoting Norfolk Div. of Soc. Servs. v. Hardy, 42 Va. App. 546, 552 (2004)). “Where, as
here, the court hears 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 support it.” Simms v. Alexandria
Dep’t of Cmty. & Hum. Servs., 74 Va. App. 447, 470 (2022) (quoting Fauquier Cnty. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs. v. Ridgeway, 59 Va. App. 185, 190 (2011)).
The evidence supports the circuit court’s finding that the parents had not substantially
remedied the conditions that led to the children’s placement in foster care. The Department was
concerned over the children’s school attendance, the suitability of the home, and the parents’
drug and alcohol use. The record supports finding that the parents did not create a suitable home
-7-
environment for the children—as of the Department’s most recent visit, the home still presented
significant concerns about its sanitation and safety.
Mother failed to participate in parent support services, individual therapy, and case
management. Mother did not obtain regular work—claiming she quit to work towards the
Department’s reunification goals. The parents failed to corroborate their claims concerning
additional income. While mother denied having any addictions, she repeatedly tested positive
for drugs and alcohol. She last tested positive for alcohol ahead of the termination hearing in
October of 2023—after completing substance use treatment.
Father similarly did not remedy the conditions that led to the children’s placement into
foster care. Throughout the pendency of the proceeding, he suffered from an apparently
unresolved alcohol use disorder. Like mother, father downplayed the significance of this. He
last tested positive for alcohol in February of 2023. He did not establish stable income. Nor did
he ever substantiate his claims that he received disability benefits. While he initially claimed
that he was on short-term disability, father stated at trial that he needed longer-term support; he
did not establish that he would pursue these benefits. While he testified that he and mother were
living off father’s inheritance, the Department did not receive any documentation supporting this
claim.
Meanwhile, the children’s health and school attendance improved while they were in the
Department’s custody. Before taking the children into custody, the Department was concerned
over their health and school performance. The record shows that the children thrived afterward.
They regularly attended school and received necessary mental and physical health care.
Any progress that the parents had made came too late because they did not adequately
progress on the requirements imposed by the Department to remedy the children’s placement in
foster care. See Thach v. Arlington Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 63 Va. App. 157, 171 (2014) (a
-8-
court “may discount the parent’s current ‘progress’ if the best interests of the child[ren] would be
served by termination” (quoting L.G. v. Amherst Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 41 Va. App. 51, 56
(2003))).
On the other hand, the record establishes that the children were thriving in foster care.
They regularly attended school and received necessary mental and physical health care. At the
time of the circuit court hearing, the children had been in foster care for approximately 18
months. “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 [their] responsibilities.”
Simms, 74 Va. App. at 463 (quoting Harrison v. Tazewell Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 42 Va. App.
149, 162 (2004)).
The parents also argue that the Department did not make “reasonable and appropriate
efforts” to help them remedy the conditions leading to foster care. They fault the Department for
“impos[ing] a long litany of conditions” they had to meet without providing “funding or
transportation or accommodations or ways for the parents to balance all of these requirements.”
It is true that the Department must make “‘reasonable and appropriate efforts’ . . . to remedy the
conditions leading to foster care . . . .” Joyce, 75 Va. App. at 701 (second alteration in original)
(quoting Weaver v. Roanoke Dep’t of Hum. Res., 220 Va. 921, 929 (1980)). Yet the Department
“is not required to force its services upon . . . unwilling or disinterested parent[s].” Tackett v.
Arlington Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 62 Va. App. 296, 323 (2013). The Department offered the
parents services three months before the children entered foster care to avoid removal, but
mother repeatedly cancelled the appointments. After the children entered care, the Department
provided parent support services and case management, but the parents were discharged from
those programs for noncompliance. Nor does any evidence in the record establish that either
-9-
mother or father asked the Department for transportation services or for funds to improve the
home.
“‘[R]easonable and appropriate’ efforts of the Department can only be judged with
reference to the circumstances of a particular case.” Joyce, 75 Va. App. at 701 (quoting
Harrison, 42 Va. App. at 163). The record supports the circuit court’s finding that the
Department offered reasonable and appropriate services to the parents. They did not avail
themselves of the services they were offered. The circuit court did not err by finding that
terminating mother and father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court affirms the circuit court’s judgment.
Affirmed.
- 10 -