COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Decker, Malveaux and Senior Judge Annunziata
UNPUBLISHED
YZAVIA W. HANEY
v. Record No. 1219-16-3
ROANOKE CITY DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES MEMORANDUM OPINION*
PER CURIAM
YZAVIA W. HANEY MARCH 21, 2017
v. Record No. 1220-16-3
ROANOKE CITY DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
David B. Carson, Judge
(Yzavia W. Haney, pro se, on briefs1).
(Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney; Heather P. Ferguson, Assistant
City Attorney, on brief), for appellee.
Yzavia W. Haney is appealing an order that dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Haney argues that the trial court erred by (1) violating her due process rights and prohibiting her
from presenting evidence and (2) violating her due process rights and denying her “right to a neutral
judge.” She further contends the transcript of the June 13, 2016 hearing is incomplete and
inaccurate. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that these appeals
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
1
Mother lists additional assignments of error in her reply brief. Rule 5A:20 describes the
requirements for an opening brief, including the assignments of error. Rule 5A:22 states, “The
reply brief, if any, shall contain argument in reply to contentions made in the brief of appellee.”
Rule 5A:22 does not allow an appellant to include new assignments of error. Therefore, this
Court will not consider the additional assignments of error in the reply brief.
are without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule
5A:27.
BACKGROUND
On May 17, 2012, the circuit court entered an order terminating mother’s parental rights
to her child, and on July 1, 2013, the circuit court entered a final order of adoption for the child.
Mother exhausted her appeals to this Court and the Supreme Court of Virginia.
On March 24, 2016, mother filed a motion to reinstate the case in the City of Roanoke
Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (the JDR court). Then, on March 31, 2016,
mother filed a motion to amend an order. She asked the JDR court to restore her parental rights
and grant her full custody of her child. On April 26, 2016, the JDR court entered orders denying
her motions due to lack of jurisdiction. The orders further stated that the child had been adopted
and mother’s parental rights were terminated. Mother appealed to the circuit court.
On June 13, 2016, mother and the Roanoke City Department of Social Services (the
Department) appeared before the circuit court. The Department moved to dismiss mother’s
motions and argued that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over the matter. After hearing
arguments, the circuit court granted the Department’s motion and dismissed mother’s appeals
due to lack of jurisdiction. The circuit court entered an order memorializing its ruling on June
17, 2016. The order stated:
The Department of Social Services’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction is granted on alternative grounds: first, Ms. Haney has
exhausted all potential remedies through appeals and second,
Ms. Haney lacks standing as a “person with a legitimate interest”
as her parental rights were involuntarily terminated by Order of the
Roanoke City Circuit Court dated May 17, 2012, and her child was
subsequently adopted by Order of the Roanoke City Circuit Court
dated July 1, 2013.
These appeals followed.
-2-
ANALYSIS
Assignments of error #1 and 2
“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).
Contrary to mother’s arguments, the circuit court did not violate her due process rights in
the proceeding from which she is appealing.
Code § 16.1-241(A) states, in pertinent part:
The authority of the juvenile court to adjudicate matters involving
the custody, visitation, support, control or disposition of a child
shall not be limited to the consideration of petitions filed by a
mother, father or legal guardian but shall include petitions filed at
any time by any party with a legitimate interest therein. A party
with a legitimate interest shall be broadly construed and shall
include, but not be limited to, grandparents, step-grandparents,
stepparents, former stepparents, blood relatives and family
members. A party with a legitimate interest shall not include any
person . . . whose parental rights have been terminated by court
order, either voluntarily or involuntarily . . . .
Therefore, according to Code § 16.1-241(A), mother was not a “party with a legitimate
interest” because the circuit court had terminated her parental rights to the child and mother
exhausted her appeals of that decision. The orders terminating mother’s parental rights and
approving the adoption are final and not subject to further review. Rule 1:1. She can no longer
bring forward motions regarding the child. The circuit court did not err in concluding that it did
not have jurisdiction over the matter.
Assignment of error #3
Mother argues that the transcript is incomplete because certain sections were not
transcribed accurately.
-3-
According to Rule 5A:8(d),
Any party may object to a transcript or written statement on the
ground that it is erroneous or incomplete. Notice of such objection
specifying the errors alleged or deficiencies asserted shall be filed
with the clerk of the trial court within 15 days after the date the
notice of filing the transcript (paragraph (b) of this Rule) or within
15 days after the date the notice of filing the written statement
(paragraph (c) of this Rule) is filed in the office of the clerk of the
trial court or, if the transcript or written statement is filed before
the notice of appeal is filed, within 10 days after the notice of
appeal has been filed with the clerk of the trial court. The clerk
shall give prompt notice of the filing of such objections to the trial
judge. Within 10 days after the notice of objection is filed with the
clerk of the trial court, the judge shall:
(1) overrule the objection; or
(2) make any corrections that the trial judge deems
necessary; or
(3) include any accurate additions to make the
record complete; or
(4) certify the manner in which the record is
incomplete; and
(5) sign the transcript or written statement.
At any time while the record remains in the office of the clerk of
the trial court, the trial judge may, after notice to counsel and
hearing, correct the transcript or written statement.
The judge’s signature on a transcript or written statement, without
more, shall constitute certification that the procedural requirements
of this Rule have been satisfied.
Mother did not follow the procedure in Rule 5A:8(d) because the record does not reflect
that she filed any objections with the clerk of the circuit court. Therefore, this Court will not
consider her arguments.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ruling is summarily affirmed. Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
-4-
Yzavia W. Haney v. Roanoke City Department of Social Services
Combined Opinion