Ashley Williams v. City of Virginia Beach, Department of Human Services, 0418211

Mother appealed the JDR court’s August 12, 2020 order terminating her parental rights and approving adoption as the foster-care goal.
The circuit-court trial was set for January 21, 2021; mother had notice but did not appear. The court waited over 30 minutes and made a last call with no response.
The Department moved under Code § 16.1-106.1(D) to treat the appeal as withdrawn for failure to appear; the guardian ad litem joined; the circuit court granted the motion and reinstated the JDR court’s termination order.
Mother later submitted a letter claiming she had been misdirected by a courthouse clerk to the JDR court rather than the circuit court and asked for another chance; the circuit court denied relief.
The child had been in Department custody since January 28, 2019 (about two years); the court emphasized the child’s best interests in avoiding prolonged delay.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal for mother’s failure to appear	Mother: Dismissal rested on an inference of willfulness; her nonappearance was not willful but caused by a clerk’s misdirection	Dept.: Code §16.1-106.1(D) empowers the court to treat an appeal as withdrawn when an appellant fails to appear; dismissal was appropriate and focused on failure to appear and child’s best interests	Affirmed: No abuse of discretion; dismissal under §16.1-106.1(D) was permissible based on failure to appear and child’s interest in prompt permanency

King v. King George Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 69 Va. App. 206 (Va. Ct. App. 2018) (view evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party on appeal)
C. Farrell v. Warren Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 59 Va. App. 375 (Va. Ct. App. 2012) (same standard for appellate view of evidence)
Wal-Mart Stores East, LP v. State Corp. Comm’n, 299 Va. 57 (Va. 2020) (use of “may” conveys broad discretionary authority)
Thomas v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. App. 104 (Va. Ct. App. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion review described; reasonable jurists may differ)
Hamad v. Hamad, 61 Va. App. 593 (Va. Ct. App. 2013) (illustrates range of reasonable discretionary outcomes)
Tackett v. Arlington Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 62 Va. App. 296 (Va. Ct. App. 2013) (child’s best interests paramount in parental-rights matters)
Kaywood v. Halifax Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535 (Va. Ct. App. 1990) (delay harms child’s interest in permanency)
Levick v. MacDougall, 294 Va. 283 (Va. 2017) (limited unsealing of sealed record where facts necessary to decision are disclosed)