COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner
BRIAN R. KEITH, SOMETIMES KNOWN AS
RICHARD BRIAN KEITH
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 0981-07-3 PER CURIAM
OCTOBER 2, 2007
ROANOKE CITY DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
Jonathan M. Apgar, Judge
(Melvin L. Hill; Ware & Hill, L.L.P., on brief), for appellant.
Appellant submitting on brief.
(William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Heather P. Ferguson,
Assistant City Attorney; L. Brad Braford, Guardian ad litem for the
minor children, on brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad
litem submitting on brief.
On April 13, 2007, the trial court entered an order terminating the parental rights of Richard
Brian Keith (appellant) to his daughters, S.K. and D.K. The trial court found clear and convincing
evidence proved the circumstances required for termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) and
(2). On appeal, appellant challenges the proof of conditions necessary for termination pursuant to
Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). Appellant also contends the evidence was insufficient to prove the
circumstances required for termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B). Finding no error, we
affirm.
“[C]lear and convincing evidence that the termination [of residual parental rights] is in
the child’s best interests is a requirement in common to termination of parental rights under Code
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
§ 16.1-283(B) [or] (C) . . . .” Fields v. Dinwiddie County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 8
n.5, 614 S.E.2d 656, 659 n.5 (2005). While the best interests of the child is “the paramount
consideration of a trial court” in a termination proceeding, Logan v. Fairfax County Dep’t of
Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991), terminations under Code
§ 16.1-283(B) and the subsections of Code § 16.1-283(C) provide distinct, “individual bases
upon which a petitioner may seek to terminate residual parental rights,” City of Newport News v.
Winslow, 40 Va. App. 556, 563, 580 S.E.2d 463, 466 (2003).
Pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(1), a parent’s residual parental rights of a child placed in
foster care may be terminated if the court finds that
[t]he parent [has] . . . , without good cause, failed to maintain
continuing contact with and to provide or substantially plan for the
future of the child for a period of six months after the child’s
placement in foster care notwithstanding the reasonable and
appropriate efforts of social, medical, mental health or other
rehabilitative agencies to communicate with the parent . . . and to
strengthen the parent-child relationship.
Termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) requires proof that the parent, “without good
cause, ha[s] been unwilling or unable within a reasonable period of time not to exceed twelve
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
reasonable and appropriate efforts of services agencies.
In Fields, 46 Va. App. at 3, 614 S.E.2d at 657, a parent appealed to this Court from the
trial court’s decision to terminate her parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) and
Code § 16.1-283(E)(i). On appeal, she contended the evidence did not support the termination
under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), but she did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain
the termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(E)(i). This Court found that, in light of the
unchallenged termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(E)(i), it was not required to consider the
-2-
sufficiency of the evidence to support the termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). Fields, 46
Va. App. at 8, 614 S.E.2d at 659.
Likewise, appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support the terminations
pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), but does not challenge the terminations pursuant to Code
§ 16.1-283(C)(1). Appellant’s failure to challenge the terminations under Code § 16.1-283(C)(1)
renders moot his claim regarding the terminations under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), and we need not
consider it.1 Accordingly, the trial court’s decisions are affirmed.
Affirmed.
1
In addition, because the trial court did not terminate appellant’s parental rights pursuant
to Code § 16.1-283(B), we need not consider whether the evidence was sufficient to support such
a termination.
-3-
Brian R. Keith, S/K/A Richard Brian Keith v. Roanoke City Department of Social Services
Combined Opinion