COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Felton and Senior Judge Willis
KAREN CHANDLER MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record Nos. 2853-02-3 through PER CURIAM 2856-02-3 MAY 13, 2003
STAUNTON-AUGUSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF AUGUSTA COUNTY Thomas H. Wood, Judge
(Kathleen M. Mizzi Todd, on briefs), for appellant.
(James B. Glick; Vellines, Cobbs, Goodwin & Glass, P.L.C., on briefs), for appellee.
Karen Chandler (mother) appeals the decisions of the circuit
court terminating her residual parental rights in her children,
Jeffrey, James, Ryan, and Shannon. On appeal, mother argues that
(1) the Department of Social Services (DSS) failed to provide
extensive reunification services as required by law, (2) the early
move for termination of parental rights was not supported by clear
and convincing evidence, (3) DSS failed to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that it provided a vast array of
rehabilitative services and interventions to remedy the conditions
leading to foster care, and (4) DSS failed to allow her a
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. reasonable time to attempt to remedy the conditions which led to
her children's foster care placement. Upon reviewing the record
and briefs of the parties, we conclude that these appeals are
without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decisions of
the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
BACKGROUND
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prevailing party below and grant to it all reasonable inferences
fairly deducible therefrom. See Logan v. Fairfax County Dep't
of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 462 (1991).
So viewed, the evidence established mother first became involved
with rehabilitative services through the Knoxville, Tennessee
Department of Social Services during the early 1990's. Suzanne
Keck, a representative of that agency, explained the Knoxville
DSS provided mother with services including substance abuse
counseling, sexual abuse counseling, recommendation and
referrals to facilitate the provision of a safe and sanitary
home, and referrals for marriage counseling. The Knoxville DSS
made five findings of abuse and neglect.
Mother began receiving services from the Augusta County DSS
and the City of Waynesboro DSS in 1992 and continued receiving
services through the removal at issue in this case, a period of
nine years. During that time, in 1998, Ryan was removed from
mother's home. He was returned home but removed again, along
with his three siblings, in July 2001. On September 24, 2001,
- 2 - DSS filed its initial foster care service plans with the goals
of adoption for all four children.
Dr. Jamie Smith, a professional counselor, testified he
worked with James, Shannon, and Jeffrey beginning in February
2002. He opined that a return to mother would be detrimental to
their health and delaying the determination of their future
placement would cause behavior problems and deeper depression
for the children.
Amy Simmons, a DSS social worker, testified about the
agency's work with mother and her family. In 1992, DSS made a
finding of abuse and neglect due to inadequate supervision and
inadequate food. In September 1998, Ryan was hospitalized after
consuming a potentially lethal dose of an antidepressant
medication. DSS made a finding against mother of physical
neglect. DSS enrolled mother and her husband in a parenting
program, provided substance abuse evaluations and treatment,
drug screening, and supervised visitation with all of the
children. DSS further provided mother with a referral for
funded counseling, arranged funding for drug treatment, provided
food stamps, and Medicare and daycare funding for Ryan.
Julie Hawkins, the social worker assigned to mother's case,
testified about the initial complaint and removal. The
complaint concerned poor supervision and an allegation that the
children were playing unsupervised in the roadway. The yard of
mother's residence was filled with scattered debris, and three
- 3 - dogs were chained or loose. The house was dirty, and had a
broken window that left shards of glass in the yard and window
frame. The children's mattresses lacked sheets, and the kitchen
was filled with food debris and dirty dishes on the counters and
floor. Hawkins requested mother undergo a number of drug
screens. Mother did not immediately comply with any of the
requests, instead waiting to be tested between four and fifteen
days after the request. Hawkins scheduled psychological
evaluations for mother on three separate occasions, and mother
failed to appear for any of the appointments. During the time
her children were in foster care, mother lived in seven
different places and had not maintained steady employment.
ANALYSIS
I. and III.
Mother argues DSS failed to provide her with adequate
rehabilitative and reunification services.
"The record must demonstrate that all 'appropriate,
available and reasonable' efforts were taken by social agencies
to remedy the conditions leading to the infant's foster care
placement." Banes v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 1 Va. App. 463, 466,
339 S.E.2d 902, 904 (1986) (citation omitted).
The evidence established that prior to announcing the goal of
adoption for mother's children, DSS offered her a wide array of
services. DSS provided mother with substance abuse counseling,
sexual abuse counseling, recommendations to alleviate a dirty
- 4 - home, marriage counseling, referrals for parenting classes, drug
screens, in-home counseling, visitation services, referrals for
psychological evaluations, Medicaid reimbursement for
transportation, funding for substance abuse treatment, food
stamps, daycare funding, lift services, housing assistance, and
the provision of transportation. Mother was provided services
from at least three different social service agencies over a
period exceeding nine years.
Mother was ordered to undergo psychological evaluations, to
obtain and maintain suitable housing, to obtain and maintain
stable employment, to undergo random drug screens, and to have
regular supervised visitation with her children. Mother failed to
cooperate with DSS and was unable to maintain regular employment
or stable housing. Mother, without good cause, failed to respond
to the extensive and repeated rehabilitative efforts. The
evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that DSS proved,
by clear and convincing evidence, that it provided mother with
adequate services.
II. and IV.
Mother argues the immediate goal for termination of
parental rights was not supported by clear and convincing
evidence and that DSS failed to provide her with a reasonable
amount of time to remedy the conditions which led to foster
care.
- 5 - Code § 16.1-281 requires social services agencies such as
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Felton and Senior Judge Willis
KAREN CHANDLER MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record Nos. 2853-02-3 through PER CURIAM 2856-02-3 MAY 13, 2003
STAUNTON-AUGUSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF AUGUSTA COUNTY Thomas H. Wood, Judge
(Kathleen M. Mizzi Todd, on briefs), for appellant.
(James B. Glick; Vellines, Cobbs, Goodwin & Glass, P.L.C., on briefs), for appellee.
Karen Chandler (mother) appeals the decisions of the circuit
court terminating her residual parental rights in her children,
Jeffrey, James, Ryan, and Shannon. On appeal, mother argues that
(1) the Department of Social Services (DSS) failed to provide
extensive reunification services as required by law, (2) the early
move for termination of parental rights was not supported by clear
and convincing evidence, (3) DSS failed to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that it provided a vast array of
rehabilitative services and interventions to remedy the conditions
leading to foster care, and (4) DSS failed to allow her a
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. reasonable time to attempt to remedy the conditions which led to
her children's foster care placement. Upon reviewing the record
and briefs of the parties, we conclude that these appeals are
without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decisions of
the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
BACKGROUND
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prevailing party below and grant to it all reasonable inferences
fairly deducible therefrom. See Logan v. Fairfax County Dep't
of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 462 (1991).
So viewed, the evidence established mother first became involved
with rehabilitative services through the Knoxville, Tennessee
Department of Social Services during the early 1990's. Suzanne
Keck, a representative of that agency, explained the Knoxville
DSS provided mother with services including substance abuse
counseling, sexual abuse counseling, recommendation and
referrals to facilitate the provision of a safe and sanitary
home, and referrals for marriage counseling. The Knoxville DSS
made five findings of abuse and neglect.
Mother began receiving services from the Augusta County DSS
and the City of Waynesboro DSS in 1992 and continued receiving
services through the removal at issue in this case, a period of
nine years. During that time, in 1998, Ryan was removed from
mother's home. He was returned home but removed again, along
with his three siblings, in July 2001. On September 24, 2001,
- 2 - DSS filed its initial foster care service plans with the goals
of adoption for all four children.
Dr. Jamie Smith, a professional counselor, testified he
worked with James, Shannon, and Jeffrey beginning in February
2002. He opined that a return to mother would be detrimental to
their health and delaying the determination of their future
placement would cause behavior problems and deeper depression
for the children.
Amy Simmons, a DSS social worker, testified about the
agency's work with mother and her family. In 1992, DSS made a
finding of abuse and neglect due to inadequate supervision and
inadequate food. In September 1998, Ryan was hospitalized after
consuming a potentially lethal dose of an antidepressant
medication. DSS made a finding against mother of physical
neglect. DSS enrolled mother and her husband in a parenting
program, provided substance abuse evaluations and treatment,
drug screening, and supervised visitation with all of the
children. DSS further provided mother with a referral for
funded counseling, arranged funding for drug treatment, provided
food stamps, and Medicare and daycare funding for Ryan.
Julie Hawkins, the social worker assigned to mother's case,
testified about the initial complaint and removal. The
complaint concerned poor supervision and an allegation that the
children were playing unsupervised in the roadway. The yard of
mother's residence was filled with scattered debris, and three
- 3 - dogs were chained or loose. The house was dirty, and had a
broken window that left shards of glass in the yard and window
frame. The children's mattresses lacked sheets, and the kitchen
was filled with food debris and dirty dishes on the counters and
floor. Hawkins requested mother undergo a number of drug
screens. Mother did not immediately comply with any of the
requests, instead waiting to be tested between four and fifteen
days after the request. Hawkins scheduled psychological
evaluations for mother on three separate occasions, and mother
failed to appear for any of the appointments. During the time
her children were in foster care, mother lived in seven
different places and had not maintained steady employment.
ANALYSIS
I. and III.
Mother argues DSS failed to provide her with adequate
rehabilitative and reunification services.
"The record must demonstrate that all 'appropriate,
available and reasonable' efforts were taken by social agencies
to remedy the conditions leading to the infant's foster care
placement." Banes v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 1 Va. App. 463, 466,
339 S.E.2d 902, 904 (1986) (citation omitted).
The evidence established that prior to announcing the goal of
adoption for mother's children, DSS offered her a wide array of
services. DSS provided mother with substance abuse counseling,
sexual abuse counseling, recommendations to alleviate a dirty
- 4 - home, marriage counseling, referrals for parenting classes, drug
screens, in-home counseling, visitation services, referrals for
psychological evaluations, Medicaid reimbursement for
transportation, funding for substance abuse treatment, food
stamps, daycare funding, lift services, housing assistance, and
the provision of transportation. Mother was provided services
from at least three different social service agencies over a
period exceeding nine years.
Mother was ordered to undergo psychological evaluations, to
obtain and maintain suitable housing, to obtain and maintain
stable employment, to undergo random drug screens, and to have
regular supervised visitation with her children. Mother failed to
cooperate with DSS and was unable to maintain regular employment
or stable housing. Mother, without good cause, failed to respond
to the extensive and repeated rehabilitative efforts. The
evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that DSS proved,
by clear and convincing evidence, that it provided mother with
adequate services.
II. and IV.
Mother argues the immediate goal for termination of
parental rights was not supported by clear and convincing
evidence and that DSS failed to provide her with a reasonable
amount of time to remedy the conditions which led to foster
care.
- 5 - Code § 16.1-281 requires social services agencies such as
DSS to develop foster care plans detailing the services to be
offered children placed in their legal custody. Subsection (B)
provides, in pertinent part, that
[i]f the department, child welfare agency or team concludes that it is not reasonably likely that the child can be returned to his prior family within a practicable time, consistent with the best interests of the child, in a separate section of the plan the department, child welfare agency or team shall (a) include a full description of the reasons for this conclusion; (b) provide information on the opportunities for placing the child with a relative or in an adoptive home; (c) design the plan to lead to the child's successful placement with a relative if a subsequent transfer of custody to the relative is planned, or in an adoptive home within the shortest practicable time . . . .
Code § 16.1-281(B). DSS determined, based upon mother's lengthy
prior relationship with social service agencies and her
inability to profit from the extensive services previously
offered, that an immediate goal of adoption was in the best
interests of the children.
The evidence supported a finding that DSS offered mother a
wide array of different services designed to address, to the
extent possible, all areas of concern and that, by failing to
cooperate with these services, mother was unable to parent
effectively. DSS was not required "to force its services upon
an unwilling or uninterested parent." Harris v. Lynchburg Div.
of Soc. Servs., 223 Va. 235, 243, 288 S.E.2d 410, 415 (1982).
- 6 - DSS properly determined adoption and the termination of parental
rights was an appropriate immediate goal.
The record shows clearly that DSS representatives met often
with mother and counseled her concerning her needs and problems,
advised her of the social and rehabilitative services available
to assist her, and offered to provide her with transportation to
obtain those services. Yet, mother refused to accept many of
the services offered her and failed to keep a number of the
appointments. More important, mother exhibited little ability
or willingness to improve the situation that existed when DSS
first began contact with her. Mother was offered a variety of
services from three different agencies over a period of almost
ten years. The record supports the court's conclusion that
mother was offered a reasonable time to correct the problems
that led to foster care for her children.
The trial court's decisions to terminate mother's residual
parental rights are supported by credible evidence showing both
that the termination is in the best interests of the children
and that the factors required by Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) are
present. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decisions of the
trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
- 7 -