COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Petty, Athey and Senior Judge Clements
UNPUBLISHED
ANGELA DARR
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 0803-19-2 PER CURIAM
FEBRUARY 11, 2020
SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Ricardo Rigual, Judge
(Sabina Nunn Wighington, on brief), for appellant.
(Kate O’Leary; Carolyn S. Seklii, Guardian ad litem for the minor
children; Sands Anderson PC; Sullivan & Seklii, PLC, on brief), for
appellee.
Angela Darr (mother) appeals the orders terminating her parental rights to her children.
Mother argues that the circuit court erred in terminating her parental rights under Code
§ 16.1-283(C)(2) and finding that termination was in the children’s best interests. 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 circuit court. See Rule 5A:27.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
BACKGROUND1
“On appeal from the termination of parental rights, this Court is required to review the
evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing in the circuit court.” Yafi v. Stafford
Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 69 Va. App. 539, 550-51 (2018) (quoting Thach v. Arlington Cty. Dep’t of
Human Servs., 63 Va. App. 157, 168 (2014)).
Mother and Timothy Darr (father) are the biological parents to five children, four of
whom are the subject of this appeal.2 The Spotsylvania County Department of Social Services
(the Department) first became involved with the family in April 2016, after receiving a call for
neglect alleging lack of food, lack of supervision, and inadequate hygiene. The family of seven
was living in one room at a motel, and mother was unemployed. The children had hygiene and
behavioral problems. In June 2016, one of the children had a second-degree sunburn, and
mother dismissed the problem saying that the child did not listen and would not get out of the
pool. Another child was getting into fights on the school bus, having trouble in school, and
destroying property. A third child took toys from a stranger in the motel’s parking lot, but
mother was unaware that the child had left the motel room.
The Department was concerned about the children’s safety and supervision. The
Department offered the family counseling, family stabilization services, and parenting services,
1
The record in this case was sealed. Nevertheless, the appeal necessitates unsealing
relevant portions of the record to resolve the issues appellant has raised. Evidence and factual
findings below that are necessary to address the assignments of error are included in this opinion.
Consequently, “[t]o the extent that this opinion mentions facts found in the sealed record, we
unseal only those specific facts, finding them relevant to the decision in this case. The remainder
of the previously sealed record remains sealed.” Levick v. MacDougall, 294 Va. 283, 288 n.1
(2017).
2
The parents’ oldest child was over the age of sixteen and chose not to be adopted, so he
was not part of the termination of parental rights proceeding.
-2-
including the Raising Our Children (ROC) parenting program. The parents, however, missed
multiple appointments with the ROC program and “were not consistently engaging.”3
Between June and August 2016, the parents placed the children with the family’s pastor.
During the summer, the parents did not consistently visit with or financially support the children.
In addition, mother was expected to sign up for driving school, for which the Department offered
to pay, and schedule doctor and counseling appointments for the children, but she did not
complete these tasks. The Department also financially assisted the parents with transportation
expenses and storage fees.
At the end of the summer of 2016, the Department held a family partnership meeting and
explained that the parents had not made sufficient progress to enable the children to return to
their care. The parents placed the children with their maternal grandmother and her husband,
and initially, the children did well at the placement. The Department offered counseling for the
oldest two children, but mother had missed or cancelled too many of the children’s counseling
appointments, and the counselors had to stop seeing the children.4 The Department referred
mother and father to the Department’s family stabilization program to focus on budgeting and
employment, but they refused to cooperate with the program.
On March 8, 2017, the Spotsylvania Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (the
JDR court) awarded joint legal custody of the children to the parents and the maternal
grandmother and primary physical custody to the maternal grandmother. The parents agreed that
they could not “properly care” for the children at the time.
The Department provided ongoing assistance for the family, including financial
assistance for the maternal grandmother while the children lived with her. For example, the
3
The parents eventually completed the ROC program in February 2017.
4
The Department was able to reinstate the counseling for the children.
-3-
Department paid for repairs to her air conditioner and water heater, as well as eradicating a bed
bug problem. The Department also provided a family support worker to help with discipline,
organization, and cleanliness.5
Once school started, the children’s behaviors “steadily declined.” The Department
provided the maternal grandmother with a parent aide, but the maternal grandmother was
“consistently resistant” to parenting advice. The Department became increasingly concerned
about the children’s safety because the children were leaving the home without the maternal
grandmother’s knowledge.6 The children’s hygiene also was “extremely poor.”
On December 7, 2017, the Department investigated allegations of physical neglect. Upon
entering the maternal grandmother’s home, the social workers were overcome with the smell of
feces and urine. The maternal grandmother explained that the water to the children’s toilet was
cut off, but it was still being used and was filled with urine and feces. The social workers also
detected strong urine and feces odors in the children’s bedrooms, which were “very dirty.”
As a result of the conditions in the maternal grandmother’s home, the Department
removed the children and placed them in foster care. The children were ages fifteen, thirteen,
ten, eight, and six years old. The Department determined that the parents’ home was not a
suitable placement for the children. Mother and father still lived in the motel and were behind on
rent. They did not have any food and repeatedly missed appointments.
On December 8, 2017, the JDR court entered emergency removal orders. The JDR court
subsequently adjudicated that the children were abused or neglected and entered dispositional
orders on February 16, 2018. Initially, the foster care goal was relative placement, with a
5
Mother and father testified that they had been staying at the maternal grandmother’s
house four nights per week to help with the children also.
6
Two of the children snuck out of the maternal grandmother’s house and stole money
and items from “numerous people.”
-4-
concurrent goal of adoption. The Department argued that a foster care goal of return home was
not “a viable option.” At a foster care review hearing in June 2018, the Department sought to
change the goal to adoption, but the JDR court disapproved the plan. The Department changed
the foster care goal to return home, with a concurrent goal of adoption, which the JDR court
approved in August 2018. The Department required that mother cooperate with the Department
and attend all appointments, participate in a psychological and psychiatric evaluation, participate
in counseling, take any prescribed medications, obtain suitable and safe housing, comply with
random drug and alcohol screens, obtain and maintain stable employment or income, participate
in a parenting class, attend visitations, and demonstrate an ability to implement learned parenting
techniques.
The Department offered mother and father supervised, therapeutic visitation with the
children, but they never progressed to unsupervised visitation. Mother never demonstrated that
she knew how to manage and redirect the children’s behaviors. Mother was “very withdrawn
from the children” and would not engage with them, instead focusing her attention on her cell
phone.7 The visitation supervisors were concerned about mother’s inability to “maintain the
safety and care of the children” and maintain appropriate parent-child boundaries. Visitations
ceased in January 2019, after the JDR court terminated the parents’ parental rights.
The Department also referred the parents to family stabilization services, which tried to
work with mother and father on a budget, but the parents did not fully cooperate. Mother and
father provided partial information and attended only seven out of fifteen appointments with
family stabilization services. In July 2018, both mother and father were employed, but by
November 2018, mother was unemployed. Mother was offered assistance with finding another
7
The visitation supervisor testified, however, that mother became more engaged with the
children during the last two visits.
-5-
job, but she did not follow through with the referrals. From June 2018 until November 2018,
mother and father lived in a one-bedroom camper at a campground, even though the children
could not live there with them. They also purchased a used car in September 2018, but the car
could not accommodate their entire family. Mother admitted that they were having trouble
saving money and could not afford a house; mother expressed even more frustration when they
were expected to pay child support.
In December 2018, the Department recommended that the foster care goal be changed to
adoption and petitioned to terminate the parents’ parental rights. Mother had not progressed with
her parenting skills, and she was unemployed. She also had not obtained and maintained suitable
housing. On January 17, 2019, the JDR court approved the foster care goal of adoption and
terminated mother’s parental rights.8 Mother appealed the termination orders to the circuit court.
On April 12, 2019, the parties appeared before the circuit court. The Department
presented evidence that when the children entered foster care, they were “wild” and did not have
good hygiene skills. The children did not know how to brush their teeth, and the youngest child
refused to wash or brush her hair, which was very knotted. All of the children required dental
care, and three of the children needed eyeglasses. One of the children required medication to fall
asleep due to his extreme anxiety.
The Department provided all of the children with in-home counselors, and two of the
children attended outpatient counseling, too. At the circuit court hearing, the social worker
testified that the children were “doing phenomenal.” The foster care mother reported that the
child who had trouble sleeping no longer needed medication. The children were up-to-date with
8
The JDR court also terminated father’s parental rights, and he appealed the termination
orders to the circuit court. The circuit court terminated father’s parental rights, but father did not
appeal that decision.
-6-
all of their medical and dental needs. The children had improved academically, and one child
received extra assistance with his schoolwork.
Mother testified that she and father were ready and able to take care of the children. In
November 2018, mother and father moved from the camper to a one bedroom, one bathroom,
basement apartment. Mother thought that the apartment could accommodate all of the children.
Mother still did not have her driver’s license and was unemployed at the time of the circuit court
hearing.
After hearing all of the evidence and closing arguments, the circuit court found that the
termination of mother’s parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) was in the children’s best
interests. The circuit court entered orders memorializing its rulings. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
Mother argues that the circuit court erred in terminating her parental rights under Code
§ 16.1-283(C)(2) and in finding that the termination was in the best interests of the children.
“On review, ‘[a] trial court is presumed to have thoroughly weighed all the evidence, considered
the statutory requirements, and made its determination based on the child’s best interests.’”
Castillo v. Loudoun Cty. Dep’t of Family Servs., 68 Va. App. 547, 558 (2018) (quoting Logan v.
Fairfax Cty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128 (1991)). “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.” Fauquier Cty. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs. v. Ridgeway, 59 Va. App. 185, 190 (2011) (quoting Martin v. Pittsylvania Cty. Dep’t of
Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20 (1986)).
Mother asserts that she substantially remedied the conditions that led to the children’s
placement in foster care. She emphasizes that she was not living in the maternal grandmother’s
home when the Department removed the children. Mother also stresses that she and father
-7-
moved from the motel room to a larger apartment. She further argues that she made progress
while the children were in foster care and that she regularly visited the children, with whom she
had a “good relationship.”
The circuit court terminated mother’s parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), which
states that 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 12 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.
“[S]ubsection C termination decisions hinge not so much on the magnitude of the problem that
created the original danger to the child, but on the demonstrated failure of the parent to make
reasonable changes.” Yafi, 69 Va. App. at 552 (quoting Toms v. Hanover Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,
46 Va. App. 257, 271 (2005)).
The Department started offering services to the family in April 2016, due to concerns
about the family’s living situation, the children’s hygiene problems, and lack of supervision.
The situation did not improve, so the children were “parentally placed” with their pastor for the
summer of 2016 and then with the maternal grandmother from September 2016 until December
2017. In March 2017, the JDR court made a finding, which the circuit court accepted, that “the
parents agreed that they couldn’t currently properly care for the child[ren].” The visitation
supervisor testified that mother could not manage the children’s behavior and redirect them.
Mother never progressed to the point of having unsupervised visitations. The parents refused to
cooperate with family stabilization services, which tried to assist them with financial matters and
create a budget. At the time of the circuit court hearing, mother was unemployed, lived in a
-8-
one-bedroom basement apartment, and did not have her driver’s license. The circuit court found
that mother was in a “very similar position” as to when the Department first became involved.
The children had not been in mother’s care for approximately three years. The children’s
foster care mother described the children as “feral” and “wild” when they started staying with
her. The children lacked basic hygiene skills and had numerous medical, dental, emotional,
behavioral, and academic problems. While in foster care, they received counseling, went to the
doctor and dentist, and improved in school. Mother was not in a position to care for 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 resuming his [or her] responsibilities.” Tackett
v. Arlington Cty. Dep’t of Human Servs., 62 Va. App. 296, 322 (2013) (quoting Kaywood v.
Halifax Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540 (1990)).
Considering the totality of the circumstances, the circuit court did not err in terminating
mother’s parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) and finding that the termination was in the
best interests of the children.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s ruling is summarily affirmed. Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
-9-