Todaro v. Alexandria Department of Social Services

Supreme Court of Virginia

Todaro v. Alexandria Department of Social Services

309 S.E.2d 303, 226 Va. 307, 1983 Va. LEXIS 287

CourtSupreme Court of Virginia

DecidedDecember 2, 1983

DocketRecord No. 811481

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 309 S.E.2d 303 (Todaro v. Alexandria Department of Social Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Todaro v. Alexandria Department of Social Services, 309 S.E.2d 303, 226 Va. 307, 1983 Va. LEXIS 287 (Va. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

Code § 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 § 16.1-281, which documents termination of residual parental rights as being in. the best interests of the child.” Code § 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 § 16.1-283 is the juvenile and domestic relations district court. Although the appeal [309]*309to 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

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.

Code § 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 § 16.1-281, which documents termination of residual parental rights as being in. the best interests of the child.” Code § 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 § 16.1-283 is the juvenile and domestic relations district court. Although the appeal [309]*309to 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 S.E.2d 303, 226 Va. 307, 1983 Va. LEXIS 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/todaro-v-alexandria-department-of-social-services-va-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack