COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges McCullough, Decker and Senior Judge Felton
UNPUBLISHED
JANNIFER SPRUILL
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 1572-15-1 PER CURIAM
FEBRUARY 16, 2016
CHESAPEAKE DEPARTMENT
OF HUMAN SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE
E. Preston Grissom, Judge
(Stephanie P. Pass, on brief), for appellant.
(Ryan C. Samuel, Assistant City Attorney; Ayodele M. Ama,
Guardian ad litem for the minor children, on brief), for appellee.
Jannifer Spruill (mother) appeals the orders terminating her parental rights to three of her
children. Mother argues that the trial court erred by finding that she, without good cause, “had
failed to remedy substantially the conditions which led to the placement of the minor children in
foster care.” 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. See Rule
5A:27.
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 Cty. Dep’t of
Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991).
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
On June 12, 2013, the Chesapeake Department of Human Services (the Department)
received a report that mother was arrested on felony forgery charges and that the conditions of
the home were deplorable. There also were concerns about a firearm in the home within the
children’s reach, a lack of food in the house, and lack of medical care for one of the children.
The Department tried to investigate the complaint, but the parents were not cooperative.
On September 11, 2013, the Department received a report that one of the children had an
asthma attack at school and had to go to the hospital. The school was not able to reach Donnell
M. Spruill (father) or mother. There was no medication in the child’s inhaler or at home.
On September 12, 2013, the Department received another report regarding the deplorable
conditions of the home.
On September 13, 2013, mother and father appeared before the circuit court for a custody
hearing. On that date, the circuit court removed the parties’ four minor children from their care
and awarded custody to the Department due to concerns about the children’s living conditions,
the parents’ substance abuse problems, mother’s recent felony convictions, and the children’s
inadequate medical care. The circuit court remanded the foster care case to the Chesapeake
Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (the JDR court).
The JDR court found that the children were abused and neglected. The JDR court
ordered the parents to participate in marital counseling, individual counseling, parenting classes,
and visitation with the children. The JDR court also directed mother to obtain substance abuse
treatment1 and find employment. Lastly, the JDR court told both parents to cooperate with the
Department.
1
Mother tested positive for cocaine on September 20, 2013. In 2014, she also tested
positive for cocaine on February 21 and March 21, marijuana on June 14 and June 30, and
cocaine and marijuana on August 4.
-2-
Two of the children had autism, and the other two children had behavior problems. One
child was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression, and attention
hyperactivity disorder.
The parents completed the parenting classes and regularly visited with the children.
However, in May 2014, the Department noticed that the parents were having inappropriate
conversations and interactions with the children during visitations. The Department discussed
the matter with the parents and gave them a new set of rules. Mother threw the visitation rules at
the window where a representative was sitting. Mother also put her hand in a supervisor’s face.
The children’s behavior deteriorated after visiting with their parents.
On July 28, 2014, mother participated in a family partnership meeting. Mother and father
had not provided documentation to the Department to show that they completed the required
services. Mother needed to provide documentation of stable housing and employment and
participation in marital counseling and substance abuse treatment.
On August 20, 2014, the JDR court conducted a permanency planning hearing. It did not
approve the goal of return home and continued the case to October 22, 2014 for the Department
to revise the goal. Mother was tested for drugs, and she tested positive for marijuana and
cocaine. Although mother said that she had a job, she did not provide documentation to the
Department.
On October 22, 2014, father and mother appeared at the permanency planning hearing.
Mother still had not provided the necessary documentation. The JDR court found that mother
had made no significant improvements since the children’s removal. The JDR court approved
the goals of adoption for the children and ordered the Department to file petitions to terminate
mother’s and father’s parental rights. The parents appealed.
-3-
After the JDR court hearing, the sheriff’s department took mother into custody because of
an outstanding capias for failure to appear/violation of probation. In January 2015, mother
enrolled in the drug court program and started to attend narcotics anonymous. However, at trial,
she did not know her sponsor’s full name or telephone number. She did not know the twelve
steps of the narcotics anonymous program, but said she was on step four. She still was on phase
one of the drug court program, and thought it would take her between three months and more
than one year to complete all four phases.
Meanwhile, the social worker, guardian ad litem, and CASA worker met with father to
discuss a plan for returning the children to his care. The Department was concerned about father
and mother living together because of mother’s substance abuse problems. They discussed
father separating from mother and finding suitable living arrangements. Father agreed, but then
failed to maintain contact with the Department, the guardian ad litem, and the CASA worker.
On April 8, 2015, the JDR court terminated mother’s and father’s parental rights. The parents
appealed.
On July 6 and 15, 2015, the parties appeared before the circuit court. The Department
informed the circuit court that the parties had reached an agreement with respect to mother and
father’s oldest child. The Department was not seeking termination of their parental rights with
respect to that child because he was almost eighteen years old. At the hearing, both mother and
father admitted having unauthorized contact with one of the children. The parents had stopped
attending marital counseling, and family therapy had not occurred. Two children testified in
camera and stated that they preferred to stay in their foster care home. After hearing all of the
evidence and argument, the trial court determined that it was in the children’s best interests to
terminate mother’s and father’s parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). It approved
the goals of adoption. This appeal followed.
-4-
ANALYSIS
“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.” Martin v. Pittsylvania Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20, 348 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1986)
(citation omitted). When considering termination of parental rights, “the paramount
consideration of a trial court is the child’s best interests.” Logan, 13 Va. App. at 128, 409 S.E.2d
at 463.
Mother argues that the trial court erred in concluding that she had not substantially
remedied the conditions that led to the children being placed in foster care and terminating her
parental rights. Mother notes that she completed the parenting classes and started the marital
counseling. She also participated in substance abuse treatment. She was in the drug court
program and narcotics anonymous. Mother acknowledged that she did not have a job at the time
of the trial, but testified that she had a valid food service card, which could help her with finding
a job in the food service industry. Mother contends the trial court should not have terminated her
parental rights to her three minor children.
A court may 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 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 the
reasonable and appropriate efforts of social, medical, mental health
or other rehabilitative agencies to such end.
Code § 16.1-283(C)(2).
One of the reasons why the children came into foster care was because of mother’s
substance abuse problem. She admittedly used drugs while the children were in foster care. In
early 2015, she was ordered into the drug court program. As of the date of the trial, she was still
-5-
on phase one of the program and testified that it could take more than one year to complete the
program. Additionally, she testified that she participated in narcotics anonymous, but could not
recall her sponsor’s full name or phone number. There was evidence that mother had not been
truthful with her substance abuse counselor regarding her drug usage. Mother was not able to
prove that she had overcome her substance abuse problems.
Another concern was mother’s stability. Mother exhibited anger during visitations,
especially after the Department gave the parents rules for visitation. She did not have a job and
was dependent on father. However, mother and father were experiencing marital difficulty.
They stopped marital counseling and never participated in family counseling. The trial court
believed that mother’s and father’s efforts to reconcile were not sincere, but were made to
prevent their parental rights from being terminated.
The trial court was particularly concerned about mother’s refusal to follow directions.
The trial court noted that mother did not like the substance abuse counselor and refused to follow
through on the counselor’s recommendations. Likewise, mother quit marital counseling because
she did not like the marriage counselor’s advice. The trial court was troubled that despite being
told not to correspond with the children privately, mother “defiantly did it anyway and then
thought that social services was against her because of that.” The trial court stated, “I have had
only . . . incident after incident where Mrs. Spruill cannot follow instructions and resists
following instructions.” The trial court found that if the children were returned to mother’s
custody, her refusal to listen to others would negatively impact the children, especially since they
needed services for their special needs.
The children had been in foster care for approximately two years, but mother still was not
in a position to have custody of the children. “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
-6-
resuming his [or her] responsibilities.” Kaywood v. Halifax Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 10
Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1990).
Considering the totality of the circumstances, the trial court did not err in terminating
mother’s parental rights to her three minor children.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ruling is summarily affirmed. Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
-7-