Summary
In Todaro, the Supreme Court held that "[a]lthough the appeal to the circuit court requires a trial de novo, a refiling of the plan in the circuit court, while perhaps advisable, is not required."
Summary of this case from Sawyers v. Tazewell Cnty Dept.Opinion
44553 Record No. 811481.
December 2, 1983
Present: All the Justices.
Code Sections 16.1-281 and -283 do not require refiling of foster care plan at de novo trial in Circuit Court if plan properly filed for original hearing in Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court; termination of residual parental rights supported by clear and convincing evidence.
(1) Domestic Relations — Statutory Construction — Termination of Residual Parental Rights (Code Sec. 16.1-283); Foster Care Plan (Code Sec. 16.1-281) — "Court" Referred to in Code Sec. 16.1-283 is Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.
(2) Domestic Relations — Statutory Construction — Termination of Residual Parental Rights (Code Sec. 16.1-283); Foster Care Plan (Code Sec. 16.1-281) — No Requirement of Refiling Foster Care Plan or Repeated Notice to Interested Parties Upon Trial De Novo in Circuit Court if Code Requirements Satisfied in First Hearing in Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.
(3) Domestic Relations — Termination of Residual Parental Rights (Code Sec. 16.1-283) — Evidence — Supports Termination.
The Department of Social Services in Alexandria, Virginia, filed petitions in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court of the City of Alexandria requesting termination of plaintiff's residual parental rights in three of her children. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court terminated plaintiff's parental rights. She appealed the decision to the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court conducted a trial de novo, relying on the foster care plan filed in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. The Circuit Court upheld the District Court. Plaintiff appeals on the ground that a refiling of the plan was mandated by Code Sections 16.1-281 and -283, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment.
1. The "court" referred to in Code Sec. 16.1-283 is the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court, this construction being supported by the requirement in Code Sec. 16.1-281, referred to in Code Sec. 16.1-283, that the Department of Social Services file the plan with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.
2. When a Circuit Court rehears de novo a case originally tried in the District Court, the foster care plan filed in the District Court pursuant to Code Sections 16.1-281 and -283 need not be refiled in the Circuit Court.
3. The Trial Court's finding that plaintiff's parental rights should be terminated is supported by the evidence, including the foster care plans available to the Court.
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria. Hon. Albert H. Grenadier, judge presiding.
Affirmed.
Christian C. Westerman for appellant.
Dorathea J. Peters; Thomas Carter, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney; Gregory L. Murphy for appellees.
Florence Todaro appeals from a judgment of the trial court terminating her residual parental rights in three of her children. Foster care plans for each child were filed in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court of the City of Alexandria before the termination petitions were filed. The District Court terminated Todaro's parental rights, and she appealed the decision to the Circuit Court, where a trial de novo was conducted. However, the foster care plans were not refiled in the Circuit Court. Todaro contends a refiling was statutorily mandated and, absent a refiling, the evidence before the Circuit Court was insufficient as a matter of law to support its judgment. We do not agree.
[1-2] Code Sec. 16.1-283 provides in part that "[n]o petition seeking termination of residual parental rights shall be accepted by the court prior to the filing of a foster care plan, pursuant to Sec. 16.1-281, which documents termination of residual parental rights as being in the best interests of the child." Code Sec. 16.1-281 requires the Department of Social Services to file the plan with the "juvenile and domestic relations district court" and provides that certain parts of the plan "shall be sent by the court to the attorney for the child, the child's parents . . . and such other persons as appear to the court to have a proper interest in the plan."
Thus, it is clear that "the court" referred to in Sec. 16.1-283 is the juvenile and domestic relations district court. Although the appeal to the circuit court requires a trial de novo, a refiling of the plan in the circuit court, while perhaps advisable, is not required.
The foster care plans were available to the Circuit Court and to all interested parties. Moreover, the trial court found "clear and convincing evidence" for terminating Todaro's parental rights, and we conclude that its finding is supported by the evidence.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
Affirmed.