Martha Ann Perkins v. Lynchburg DSS

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Bray and Senior Judge Overton
MARTHA ANN PERKINS
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 1080-01-3 PER CURIAM
SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
LYNCHBURG DIVISION OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG
Mosby G. Perrow, III, Judge
(G. Beth Packert, on briefs), for appellant.
Appellant submitting on briefs.
(Joyce M. Coleman, Senior Assistant City
Attorney, on brief), for appellee. Appellee
submitting on brief.
Martha Ann Perkins (mother) appeals the decision of the
circuit court terminating her residual parental rights in her
children, Leroy Raymond Perkins and Thomas Henry Hosanna Perkins.
On appeal, mother contends the trial court erred in finding the
evidence sufficient to terminate her parental rights under Code
§ 16.1-283(B). Mother asks that the judgment of the trial court
be vacated and her parental rights restored. Upon reviewing the
record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is
without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial
court.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
On appeal, we view the evidence and all the reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to appellee as the party
prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App. 248, 250,
391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990).
Background
Social worker Rebecca Neilans began providing ongoing child
protective services for Leroy in 1997, after receiving complaints
that the child suffered from inadequate shelter. Neilans
testified that during the twenty-seven months she worked with
mother and her family, they moved seven times without notifying
her. Neilans explained mother repeatedly denied her access to the
family's residences and that each time Neilans visited, she noted
trash piled outside the houses. Mother refused to speak with
Neilans and would not cooperate with the social worker's efforts
to establish a service plan. While mother was pregnant with
Thomas, she accepted aid from Neilans, but cut off contact soon
after the child's birth in February 1998.
In April 1999, after trying for four months to enter mother's
residence, Neilans entered the house. Inside she discovered
boxes, papers, and clothing piled high throughout the residence.
Clothing and other items were piled within inches of the wood
stove used to heat the home. Shortly thereafter, the family moved
to a different house. Similarly, the new house contained piles of
trash and clothing. Neilans testified the house had no
refrigerator. Mother announced her plans to move to Pennsylvania
- 2 -
to be close to the children's father, a convicted sex offender,
who had previously committed sodomy upon a young boy. Mother's
mother admitted to Neilans that mother had recently told her she
was going to the store and did not return for three weeks.
The Lynchburg Division of Social Services (LDSS) filed a
petition for a protective order on March 17, 1999 and a petition
for emergency removal on June 16, 1999. Neilans explained mother
failed to enroll in parenting classes, did not cooperate with LDSS
and failed to take Thomas to the doctor for his immunizations.
After LDSS removed the children from mother's home, social
worker Sally Barca took over the case. She attempted to establish
a stable visitation schedule, re-establish Medicaid attending,
enroll mother in parenting classes, and have mother undergo a
psychological evaluation. Dr. James Anderson performed the
psychological evaluation, but mother failed to complete the
parenting classes. Barca was unable to establish regular
visitation between mother and her children. Due to mother's
incarceration, the first visit occurred on October 23, 1999.
Barca noted that mother avoided the children during the visit and
that Leroy appeared frightened of mother. Barca attempted to
counsel mother about what she would need to do in order to regain
custody of her children, but mother became angry and left. Mother
failed to attend a visit scheduled for November 6, 1999, and she
did not ask for any more visits until after LDSS filed for
termination in February 2000. When Barca visited mother's
- 3 -
residence on May 2, 2000, she found trash, furniture and shopping
carts scattered outside the house. Inside, she found trash bags
and clothing spread about and detected a strong odor of garbage.
Dr. Anderson qualified as an expert and testified about his
evaluation of mother. He explained she showed little ability to
communicate with children at an age appropriate level and showed
no ability to identify children's feelings. He found that mother
has very little understanding about how to handle child rearing
situations, including recognizing developmental needs and
potentially serious medical problems. Dr. Anderson felt it was
unlikely mother could respond to education or training to improve
her parenting skills. In 1991, mother's parental rights in her
four older children were terminated. The guardian ad litem for
Leroy and Thomas supported LDSS's petitions that termination of
parental rights would be in the children's best interests.
ANALYSIS
In pertinent part, Code § 16.1-283(B) provides:
The residual parental rights of a parent or
parents of a child found by the court to be
neglected or abused and placed in foster care as
a result of (i) court commitment; (ii) an
entrustment agreement entered into by the parent
or parents; or (iii) other voluntary
relinquishment by the parent or parents may be
terminated if the court finds, based upon clear
and convincing evidence, that it is in the best
interests of the child and that:
1. The neglect or abuse suffered by such
child presented a serious and substantial threat
to his life, health or development; and
- 4 -
2. It is not reasonably likely that the
conditions which resulted in such neglect or
abuse can be substantially corrected or
eliminated so as to allow the child's safe return
to his parent or parents within a reasonable
period of time. In making this determination,
the court shall take into consideration the
efforts made to rehabilitate the parent or
parents by any public or private social, medical,
mental health or other rehabilitative agencies
prior to the child's initial placement in foster
care.
The trial court found that Leroy and Thomas were neglected
and placed into foster care as a result of mother's neglect, that
the neglect represented a substantial and serious threat to their
life, health, and development, that it was unlikely that the
conditions which brought the children into care could sufficiently
be corrected to allow them to return home, and that the
termination was in the best interests of the children. "Where the
trial court hears the evidence ore tenus, its decision is
entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal
unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it."
Roanoke City Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Heide, 35 Va. App. 328,
336, 544 S.E.2d 890, 894 (2001).
Mother failed to maintain a safe environment for her
children. Her residences over the years were consistently
littered with trash and clothing. In one home these items were
piled next to a wood burning stove. In another residence the
family did not have a working refrigerator and the social worker
observed dirty clothes throughout the kitchen. Mother failed to
- 5 -
keep Thomas' immunization shots current and had not been
providing him with basic medical care. The trial court did not
err in finding that the children were neglected in such a way
that endangered their life, health and development.
Code § 16.1-283(B)(2)(c) provides that prima facie evidence
of the conditions set forth in subsection (B)(2) exists when
there is proof that the parent, "without good cause, [has] not
responded to or followed through with appropriate, available and
reasonable rehabilitative efforts on the part of social,
medical, mental health or other rehabilitative agencies designed
to . . . prevent the neglect of the child." Mother failed to
achieve any goals or effect any changes. She was uncooperative
and avoided the social workers. She failed to maintain contact
with her children and allowed her Medicaid and other benefits to
lapse. The testimony of Dr. Anderson indicated that mother was
unlikely and unwilling to correct the problems that led to the
neglect of her children. The trial court, faced with the facts
contained in this record, was justified in finding that the
children were not likely to be returned to mother within a
reasonable period of time.
Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 6 -