Opinion
Record No. 0106-14-4
07-15-2014
RICARDO ESTEBAN ASTUDILLO v. FAIRFAX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES
(Chanel M. Jackson; Lavonda N. Graham-Williams, on brief), for appellant. (David P. Bobzien, County Attorney; Peter D. Andreoli, Jr., Deputy County Attorney; Donna R. Banks, Assistant County Attorney; Darlene R. Langley, Guardian ad litem for the infant child; Langley & Langley, PC, on brief), for appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Present: Judges Alston, Decker and Senior Judge Coleman
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
PER CURIAM
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Michael F. Devine, Judge
(Chanel M. Jackson; Lavonda N. Graham-Williams, on brief), for appellant.
(David P. Bobzien, County Attorney; Peter D. Andreoli, Jr., Deputy County Attorney; Donna R. Banks, Assistant County Attorney; Darlene R. Langley, Guardian ad litem for the infant child; Langley & Langley, PC, on brief), for appellee.
Ricardo Esteban Astudillo appeals the trial court's order terminating his parental rights to his child pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B)(1), 16.1-283(B)(2)(a), 16.1-283(B)(2)(c), 16.1-283(C)(2), and 16.1-283(E)(i). Astudillo argues the trial court erred because he complied with the services offered by Fairfax County Department of Family Services as best as he could and there was no evidence of continuing domestic violence. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
Astudillo does not challenge the trial court's decision to terminate his rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(E)(i). This finding was supported by the evidence that Astudillo's parental rights to his other child were terminated in 2012. Because Astudillo does not challenge the trial court's decision to terminate his residual parental rights under subsection (E), the issue of whether termination was warranted pursuant to subsections (B) and (C) is rendered moot. See Fields v. Dinwiddie Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 8, 614 S.E.2d 656, 659 (2005) (termination of parental rights upheld under one subsection of Code § 16.1-283 forecloses need to consider termination under alternative subsections).
The trial court's decision is summarily affirmed. See Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.