Adam Yafi v. Stafford Department of Social Services, 69 Va. App. 539

In January 2017 four-year-old Y.Y. was admitted with severe head and spinal injuries (coma, seizures, permanent blindness, brain tissue loss, crushed T1 vertebra); medical testimony indicated multiple acute, subacute, and chronic injuries inconsistent with accidental causes.
DSS removed L.Y., Y.Y.’s half‑sister (≈18 months), from the home the same day after observing the home conditions and learning of Y.Y.’s injuries; L.Y. had only minor bruising and was placed in foster care where she thrived.
Yafi (father) was hospitalized after an attempted suicide; he later entered an Alford plea to aggravated malicious wounding and a guilty plea to child neglect; Benfaraj (co‑caretaker) pleaded guilty to child cruelty/neglect.
Juvenile court adjudicated L.Y. abused/neglected, placed her in foster care, and later approved adoption as the goal; J&DR termination was appealed to the circuit court.
The circuit court accepted Yafi’s convictions and, relying on Code § 16.1‑283(E)(iii) (felony assault causing serious bodily injury to the parent’s child) and (E)(iv) (aggravated circumstances), terminated Yafi’s parental rights as being in L.Y.’s best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Yafi)	Defendant's Argument (DSS)	Held
Whether DSS must show it provided "reasonable and appropriate" reunification efforts before terminating parental rights under Code § 16.1‑283	Yafi: The court erred because DSS failed to prove it provided reasonable and appropriate services to remedy conditions that led to foster care placement (invoking § 16.1‑283(C)(2)).	DSS: Termination was pursued under § 16.1‑283(E)(iii)/(iv), which do not require a showing of services; thus no predicate services proof necessary.	Held: Termination under § 16.1‑283(E)(iii)/(iv) does not require proof of reasonable and appropriate efforts; circuit court did not err.
Whether evidence was sufficient to show Yafi caused Y.Y.’s injuries and that termination was in L.Y.’s best interest	Yafi: There was insufficient evidence that he caused Y.Y.’s injuries and insufficient proof that termination was in L.Y.’s best interest because L.Y. was not herself abused.	DSS: Yafi’s convictions (Alford plea accepted) for aggravated malicious wounding and child neglect, plus extensive medical and investigative evidence, show nonaccidental, severe injuries to Y.Y.; statute permits terminating rights to other children when a parent is convicted for assault causing serious bodily injury to that parent’s child.	Held: Convictions and the record provide clear and convincing evidence to terminate under § 16.1‑283(E)(iii); termination affirmed as in L.Y.’s best interests.

Thach v. Arlington Cty. Dep’t of Human Servs., 63 Va. App. 157 (review standard on termination appeals)
Tackett v. Arlington Cty. Dep’t of Human Servs., 62 Va. App. 296 (review standard on termination appeals)
Logan v. Fairfax Cty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123 (judgments based on ore tenus evidence entitled to great weight)
Peple v. Peple, 5 Va. App. 414 (same)
Rader v. Montgomery Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 5 Va. App. 523 (overview of Code § 16.1‑283 termination scheme)
Kaywood v. Halifax Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535 (statutory scheme balances parental and child interests)
Wright v. Alexandria Div. of Soc. Servs., 16 Va. App. 821 (child’s best interest paramount)
Toms v. Hanover Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 257 (§ 16.1‑283(C) focuses on parent’s failure to change)
Carroll v. Commonwealth, 54 Va. App. 730 (Alford plea treated as guilty plea for legal consequences)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (establishing the Alford‑plea doctrine)