Alfonso Renoid Mason v. Harrisonburg-Rockingham Social Services District
0149173
| Va. Ct. App. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- Child C.M. born June 2015; parents (Mason, father; Feaster, mother) had substance abuse history and the child was adjudicated abused/neglected in November 2015.
- Parents removed from Mercy House after eviction; both tested positive for drugs after the birth; father alleged to have sold heroin.
- Department provided services (parenting class, job assistance, offers of substance-abuse treatment); parents missed appointments, refused some drug tests, and failed to maintain stable housing.
- Father pled guilty to multiple felonies in November 2016 and received a lengthy prison sentence; child remained in foster care and was doing well.
- JDR court terminated both parents’ rights and set adoption goal; circuit court affirmed termination of father’s rights under Va. Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). Father appealed arguing he was making progress and was precluded from rehabilitation by incarceration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mason) | Defendant's Argument (Social Services) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under Code §16.1-283(C)(2) was proper given father’s incarceration and asserted progress | Father: incarceration precluded access to services; he was making progress and should be allowed to rehabilitate before termination | Dept: extensive services were offered pre-incarceration which father declined; incarceration does not bar termination when parent failed to remedy conditions within a reasonable time | Court: Affirmed termination under §16.1-283(C)(2); father failed to remedy conditions despite reasonable efforts and incarceration justified given totality of circumstances |
| Whether Department was required to provide services during father’s incarceration | Father: Dept. should have provided services while he was incarcerated | Dept: many services were already offered; it would be unreasonable to require Dept. to provide further services during incarceration; some jail services exist but availability limited | Court: Dept. was not required to continue offering services during incarceration; long-term incarceration can support termination when combined with other evidence and best interests of child |
Key Cases Cited
- Logan v. Fairfax Cty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 409 S.E.2d 460 (1991) (standard that child’s best interests are paramount in termination proceedings)
- Martin v. Pittsylvania Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 348 S.E.2d 13 (1986) (weight given to ore tenus findings)
- Harrison v. Tazewell Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 42 Va. App. 149, 590 S.E.2d 575 (2004) (Dept. not required to provide services during incarceration when no avenue exists to offer them)
- Ferguson v. Stafford Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 14 Va. App. 333, 417 S.E.2d 1 (1992) (long-term incarceration can be a proper circumstance supporting termination)
- Kaywood v. Halifax Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 394 S.E.2d 492 (1990) (child’s interest in stability outweighs waiting for parent’s uncertain rehabilitation)