COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Annunziata, McClanahan and Senior Judge Coleman
LARRY BARNES
MEMORANDUM OPINION *
v. Record No. 0916-03-1 PER CURIAM
AUGUST 19, 2003
NORFOLK DIVISION OF
SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK
Joseph A. Leafe, Judge
(Rodney D. Malouf; Thomas & Associates, P.C.,
on brief), for appellant.
(Bernard A. Pishko, City Attorney; Martha G.
Rollins, Deputy City Attorney, on brief), for
appellee.
(Ayodele M. Ama; Ama & Simpson, on brief),
Guardian ad Litem for the infant children.
Larry Barnes (father) appeals the March 10, 2003 decision of
the trial court terminating his parental rights to his daughters
Lakira and Larissa. On appeal, father contends the evidence was
insufficient to support the termination. Specifically, he
argues the evidence failed to establish "that the Norfolk
Division of Social Services complied with the requirements of
[Code] Sections 16.1-283(B), (C), (D) and (E)." We disagree and
summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
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).
So viewed, the evidence established that Lakira and
Larissa, aged eight and ten respectively at the time of the
circuit court hearing, were removed from their mother's care on
September 8, 1995, due to their mother's abusive disciplinary
methods and her inability to provide adequate shelter for her
children. The girls returned to mother's care on August 27,
1999, but were removed again on October 2, 2000. They remain in
foster care.
The record reveals father has had extremely limited contact
with his daughters and little involvement in their lives.
Father never proposed any plan for them during their extensive
time in foster care. He was incarcerated in 1999 and
acknowledged that he would not be released until 2019.
Code § 16.1-283(B)
Under Code § 16.1-283(B), the residual rights of a parent
of a child placed in foster care because of parental neglect or
abuse may be terminated only if the court finds by clear and
convincing evidence that (1) termination is in the best
interests of the child; (2) the neglect or abuse suffered by the
child presented a serious and substantial threat to the child's
- 2 -
life, health, or development; and (3) it is not reasonably
likely that the conditions which resulted in the neglect or
abuse can be substantially corrected or eliminated to allow the
child's safe return to his parent within a reasonable period of
time.
The evidence established the children suffered extensive
abuse while in mother's care. Appellant argues that, other than
his incarceration, DSS failed to present any credible evidence
that past or future contact between him and the children was or
will be detrimental to the children's best interests.
[W]hile long-term incarceration does not,
per se, authorize termination of parental
rights or negate . . . D[SS]'s obligation to
provide services, it is a valid and proper
circumstance which, when combined with other
evidence concerning the parent/child
relationship, can support a court's finding
by clear and convincing evidence that the
best interests of the child will be served
by termination.
Ferguson v. Stafford County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 14 Va. App.
333, 340, 417 S.E.2d 1, 5 (1992).
The children have been in foster care intermittingly for
several years. "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).
- 3 -
Moreover, the children will be above the age of majority when
appellant is released from prison.
The evidence supports the trial court's findings. It is
apparent that appellant is unable to care for the children and
is unable to remedy within a reasonable time the conditions
which led to his children's placement in foster care. Thus, we
cannot say that the trial court's finding by clear and
convincing evidence that the conditions of Code § 16.1-283 have
been established was plainly wrong or without evidence to
support it.
Code § 16.1-283(C), (D) and (E)
In its orders, the trial court found only that father's
parental rights should be terminated under Code § 16.1-283(B).
Therefore, we need not address whether the evidence supports
termination under Code § 16.1-283(C), (D) or (E).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial
court. See Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
- 4 -