From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Comer v. Virginia Beach DSS

Court of Appeals of Virginia
Mar 7, 1995
Record No. 2103-94-1 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 1995)

Opinion

Record No. 2103-94-1

Decided: March 7, 1995

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, Edward W. Hanson, Jr., Judge

(Gary W. Searcy, on brief), for appellant.

(Leslie L. Lilley, City Attorney; Teresa N. Hammons, Assistant City Attorney, on brief), for appellee.

Amici Curiae: William C. Gibbons and Patricia McAdams Gibbons. (Betsy H. Phillips; Phillips, Morrison Alexander, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.


Joelle Comer (Comer) appeals the decision of the circuit court terminating her residual parental rights to two of her children. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties and the amici curiae, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27.

"When addressing matters concerning a child, including the termination of a parent's residual parental rights, the paramount consideration of a trial court is the child's best interests." Logan v. Fairfax County Dep't of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991).

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." Furthermore, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and its evidence is afforded all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. "In matters of a child's welfare, trial courts are vested with broad discretion in making the decisions necessary to guard and to foster a child's best interests." The trial court's judgment, "when based on evidence heard ore tenus, will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it."

Id. (citations omitted).

A parent's residual parental rights may be terminated if the trial court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interests of the child, and that

The parent or parents, without good cause, have been unwilling or unable within a reasonable period not to exceed twelve months to remedy substantially the conditions which led to the child's foster care placement, notwithstanding the reasonable and appropriate efforts of social, medical, mental health or other rehabilitative agencies to such end.

Code Sec. 16.1-283(C) (2). Prima facie evidence of the elements of Code Sec. 16.1-283(C) (2) is established if it is proven that

The parent or parents, without good cause, have failed or have been unable to make reasonable progress towards the elimination of the conditions which led to the child's foster care placement in accordance with their obligations under and within the time limits or goals set forth in a foster care plan filed with the court . . . .

Code Sec. 16.1-283(C) (3) (b).

The trial court ruled that clear and convincing evidence established that Comer "failed without good cause, to make reasonable progress toward the elimination of the conditions that led to the children's foster care placement in accordance with her obligations and within the time limits set forth in the foster care plans." Comer had been required, among other conditions, to complete an alcohol abuse treatment program, attend weekly AA meetings, and avoid voluntary contact with her abusive husband. The Virginia Beach Department of Social Services (DSS) provided services, including transportation, financial assistance, counseling services, and visitation assistance, throughout the time Comer's children were in foster care. The DSS also worked consistently toward reuniting Comer with her children.

More than two years passed without a significant change in the underlying problems of Comer's alcohol abuse and her relationship with an abusive husband. While the trial court's March 8, 1994 order found the evidence sufficient to terminate Comer's parental rights, the court provided Comer with one last opportunity to regain custody of her children. Despite that opportunity, Comer refused to abide by the court's order to avoid her abusive husband. Comer failed to make reasonable progress toward correcting the abusive home environment that led to her children's initial placement in foster care.

During these years, Comer's children have remained in foster homes, subject to the uncertainty inherent in such arrangements. Potential adoptive parents are available. "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 [her] responsibilities." Kaywood v. Halifax County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1990).

Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Comer v. Virginia Beach DSS

Court of Appeals of Virginia
Mar 7, 1995
Record No. 2103-94-1 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 1995)
Case details for

Comer v. Virginia Beach DSS

Case Details

Full title:JOELLE COMER v. VIRGINIA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Court:Court of Appeals of Virginia

Date published: Mar 7, 1995

Citations

Record No. 2103-94-1 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 1995)