Opinion
Record No. 0014-09-3.
May 26, 2009.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke William D. Broadhurst, Judge.
(Thomas E. Wray, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief.
(William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Heather P. Ferguson, Assistant City Attorney, on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief.
(Marta J. Anderson, on brief), Guardian ad litem for the minor child. Guardian ad litem submitting on brief.
Present: Judges Elder, Beales and Senior Judge Annunziata.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Misty Gibson (mother) appeals the trial court's order terminating her parental rights to her son, N.B., under Code § 16.1-283(C)(1), (C)(2) and (E). On appeal, mother challenges the proof of conditions necessary for termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) and (C)(2), and does not challenge the proof of conditions necessary for termination under Code § 16.1-283(E). For the following reason, we affirm the trial court's decision.
In Fields v. Dinwiddie County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 3, 614 S.E.2d 656, 657 (2005), a parent appealed to this Court from the trial court's decision to terminate her parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) and Code § 16.1-283(E)(i). On appeal, she contended the evidence did not support the termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), but she did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(E)(i). This Court found that, in light of the unchallenged termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(E)(i), it was not required to consider the sufficiency of the evidence to support the termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). Fields, 46 Va. App. at 8, 614 S.E.2d at 659.
Here, likewise, mother does not challenge the termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(E). Accordingly, we need not consider mother's challenge to the termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) and (C)(2).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's decision.
Affirmed.