721 S.E.2d 21
Va. Ct. App.2012Background
- Termination of parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(A) ordered for Bagley’s infant child.
- Bagley does not challenge factual grounds; argues DSS failed to consider Davises as relatives for custody.
- Davises claimed by Bagley to be the child’s relatives; DSS argues they are not relatives and that placement with them was ill-advised.
- Issue turns on whether Davises qualify as “relatives” under Code § 16.1-283(A) and related case law.
- Court holds the Davises are not related by consanguinity, affinity, or adoption; they cannot be “immediate relatives.”
- Affirmative duty to consider relatives is applicable, but here the legal question is whether the Davises satisfy the statutory relative definition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davises qualify as the child’s relatives under Code § 16.1-283(A). | Bagley argues Davises are relatives and should have been considered. | DSS contends Davises are not relatives and placement was inappropriate; also that investigation sufficed. | Davises are not relatives; the court did not err in termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawthorne v. Smyth Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 33 Va. App. 130 (2000) (duty to investigate all relatives is not absolute; no obligation to search all relatives)
- Sauer v. Franklin Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 18 Va.App. 769 (1994) (relatives placement not required for every case)
- Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494 (2000) (statutory meaning borrows common-law concepts)
- Doyle v. Commonwealth, 100 Va. 808 (1902) (definition of consanguinity (blood relation))
- Surles v. Mayer, 48 Va.App. 146 (2006) (affinity defined as relation by marriage to the other spouse’s kindred)
- Houston v. Commonwealth, 87 Va. 257 (1890) (wording with common-law meaning presumed in statute)