COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick
JACQUELINE MILES
v. Record No. 1617-95-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
FAIRFAX COUNTY DEPARTMENT MAY 21, 1996
OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Stanley P. Klein, Judge
(John K. Bancroft, on brief), for
appellant.
(Robert Lyndon Howell, Deputy County
Attorney; Cynthia L. Tianti, Assistant
County Attorney, on brief), for appellee.
(Deborah A. Wilson; Wilson & Zepecki, on
brief), Guardian ad litem for Minor
Children.
Jacqueline Miles appeals the decision of the circuit court
terminating her residual parental rights to four of her children.
Miles contends that there was insufficient evidence to support
the trial court's conclusion to terminate her parental rights
pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B)(2) and (C)(2). 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.
"When addressing matters concerning a child, including the
termination of a parent's residual parental rights, the paramount
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
consideration of a trial court is the child's best interests."
Logan v. Fairfax County Dep't of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123,
128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991). The trial courts "'are vested
with broad discretion in making the decisions necessary to guard
and to foster a child's best interests.'" Id. (citation
omitted). On appeal, when the trial court has heard the evidence
ore tenus, its judgment will not be disturbed unless plainly
wrong or without evidence to support it. Id.
Pursuant to the provisions of Code § 16.1-283(B)(2), the
trial court found that there was clear and convincing evidence
that termination of Miles' parental rights was in the best
interests of the children, and that the neglect or abuse suffered
by the children presented a serious and substantial threat to
their life, health or development. The court also found that it
was not reasonably likely that the conditions which resulted in
the children's neglect or abuse "can be substantially eliminated
so as to allow the children's safe return to their parents within
a reasonable amount of time." The court further found, pursuant
to the provisions of Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), that clear and
convincing evidence established that Miles, without good cause,
had been unwilling or unable "within a reasonable period not to
exceed twelve months to remedy substantially the conditions which
led to the children's foster care placement, notwithstanding the
reasonable and appropriate efforts of social, medical, mental
health or other rehabilitative agencies to such end."
2
Under Code § 16.1-283(B), proof that a parent has not
responded to or followed through on appropriate rehabilitative
efforts and services offered through the Department or other
agencies is prima facie evidence that the abusive or neglectful
conditions have not been corrected. Code § 16.1-283(B)(2)(c).
Similarly, under Code § 16.1-283(C), proof that a parent
without good cause, . . . failed or . . .
[was] unable to make reasonable progress
towards the elimination of the conditions
which led to the [children's] foster care
placement in accordance with [her]
obligations under and within the time limits
or goals set forth in a foster care plan
filed with the court or any other plan
jointly designed and agreed to by the parent
. . . and a social, medical, mental health or
other rehabilitative agency
is prima facie evidence that the parent was unwilling or unable
to remedy the underlying conditions. Code § 16.1-283(C)(3)(b).
The four children were taken into foster care following
evidence of physical abuse of an older brother. Subsequently,
all four children were found to be physically abused or
neglected. L. M. was also found to be sexually abused. Dr.
Colletta, who did a psychological evaluation of L. M., W. S. and
J. P. as well as an intake evaluation of Miles, testified that
the children had a number of special needs. L. M., who was four
at the time of the evaluation, viewed the world "as a dangerous
place where children have to protect themselves from being hurt."
Dr. Colletta testified that L. M. will have to learn to trust
and to believe that adults will consistently care for her.
3
Because L. M. is at risk for an oppositional defiant disorder,
she needs a household where "there is enough structure and
routine that she comes to believe that adults actually do have
authority over her." While L. M. indicated she loved her mother,
she "was equally clear that she did not want to go home with her.
She said it would be bad, really bad and dangerous if I went
home." W. S., who was five when he was evaluated, shows strong
indications of learning disabilities and will need special
education services. W. S. is emotionally withdrawn, demonstrates
passive/aggressive behavior, and has serious emotional problems
including issues of trust and rage. Dr. Colletta testified that
anyone who cared for W. S. "is going to have to work very hard to
pull him out of his withdrawal."
J. P. suffers from attachment disorder, caused by the lack
of attachment to a stable caretaker in the initial months of his
life. He also has severely delayed speech. J. P. will need
special education services and an in-home program of language
stimulation.
Q. M. also suffers from emotional problems arising from the
physical abuse he suffered while in Miles' care. Q. M. did not
feel safe with his mother, was anxious about who would provide
for him and suffered from nightmares and sleep disorders. Miles
contends there was insufficient evidence to establish that she
was unwilling or unable to remedy the underlying conditions which
led to the abuse, or that she had failed to make reasonable
4
progress towards the elimination of those conditions in
accordance with her obligations under the children's foster care
plans. Miles participated in parental training services, mental
health services, and drug and alcohol abuse counselling through
the Department. Miles also had obtained a full-time job at which
she was doing well. Miles' testimony at trial indicated her
housing arrangements were not yet stable.
Despite her participation in parenting classes and therapy,
Miles was unwilling or unable to acknowledge the special needs of
her children. Dr. Morote, who diagnosed Miles as suffering from
a mixed narcissistic/anti-social personality disorder, testified
that Miles did not believe she needed any therapy and did not
feel responsible for her children's problems, including the
abuse. Dr. Colletta also testified that Miles denied her
children had special needs and was unable to make any specific
plans to assist her children if they were returned to her care.
In its ruling from the bench, the trial court stated that
the fact that you could say to me that there
would be no problems if the kids came home
with you is perhaps the best evidence of the
fact that you do not entirely recognize the
needs of your children, and that you do not
recognize the changes that you would have to
make in your life above and beyond the
remarkable progress that you have made to
date in order to be able to take care of the
special needs of your children.
Miles' inability to acknowledge the extent of her children's
needs demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to help the
children overcome their problems. Moreover, Miles admitted that
5
she remained in a relationship with Louis Pinckney despite a
court order prohibiting him from having any contact with the
children following the initial incident of abuse.
The children have been in foster care since 1992. "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 [her] responsibilities." Kaywood v.
Dep't of Social Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495
(1990). The trial court found that clear and convincing evidence
demonstrated that it was in the best interests of these children
to terminate Miles' parental rights. That finding is not plainly
wrong or without evidence to support it. Accordingly, the
decision of the circuit court is summarily affirmed.
Affirmed.
6