Barbara Anne Keen v. Gary Ricky Barnett and Annette Barnett
0678173
| Va. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- B.M.B., born Dec. 1, 2009, has lived with paternal grandparents (Gary Ricky and Annette Barnett) since March 2010; grandparents obtained exclusive custody in Feb. 2012.
- Grandparents filed a close-relative adoption petition under Va. Code § 63.2-1242.3 on Mar. 28, 2016; father consented, mother refused.
- Mother has a history of incarceration (Aug. 2011–Aug. 2014), ongoing treatment for fetal alcohol syndrome and bipolar disorder, and her own parents manage her affairs; she conceded she could not assume custody.
- Grandparents permitted informal supervised visits post-incarceration; mother did not seek court-ordered custody or visitation.
- Trial court found adoption was in child’s best interests and that mother withheld consent contrary to those interests; final adoption order (Mar. 28, 2017) terminated mother’s parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Keen's Argument | Barnetts' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a close-relative adoption under § 63.2-1242.3 may proceed without mother’s consent | Trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant adoption without both parents’ consent | Circuit court may grant adoption over nonconsenting parent if consent is withheld contrary to child’s best interests under § 63.2-1203/1205 | Adoption may proceed; court found mother withheld consent contrary to child’s best interests and affirmed adoption |
| Whether the trial court properly applied the § 63.2-1205 best-interests factors to override mother’s consent | Mother argued adoption was improper absent her consent | Grandparents argued child had lived with them over three years, is thriving, and mother cannot care for child | Court held trial court reasonably found factors favored adoption (mother’s incapacity, stability with grandparents, disruption harm) |
| Whether termination of mother’s parental rights was proper as consequence of adoption | Mother contended termination was erroneous | Grandparents argued termination follows from valid adoption per § 63.2-1215 | Court held termination was proper because it flowed from valid final adoption order |
| Whether appellate attorney’s fees should be awarded to grandparents | Not applicable (appellant) | Grandparents sought fees under Rule 5A:30(b) | Court declined to award fees despite grandparents’ prevailing, considering equities and non-frivolous appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- T.S.G. v. B.A.S., 52 Va. App. 583 (Va. Ct. App.) (standard: view ore tenus evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party)
- Toms v. Hanover Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 257 (Va. Ct. App.) (procedural standard for reviewing ore tenus findings)
- Martin v. Pittsylvania Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15 (Va. Ct. App.) (deference to trial court’s ore tenus findings)
- Copeland v. Todd, 282 Va. 183 (Va.) (adoption over parental objection requires more than showing adoption benefits child; § 63.2-1205 analysis explained)
- Malpass v. Morgan, 213 Va. 393 (Va.) (scope of evidence required to terminate parental rights in adoption context)
- O’Loughlin v. O’Loughlin, 23 Va. App. 690 (Va. Ct. App.) (standards and factors for awarding appellate attorney fees)