Crystal Houston v. City of Newport News Department of Human Services
1456161
| Va. Ct. App. | Jul 11, 2017Background
- Four children were removed from Crystal Houston and father after DHS found physical abuse of M.H.3 and multiple allegations by the children; children entered foster care with a relative placement (the Langs).
- DHS required mother to complete parenting/anger-management classes, individual and structural family therapy, and to sign consents allowing DHS access to therapy records as part of foster-care plans; mother completed some classes but was sporadic in therapy and refused later consents.
- DHS filed petitions (some signed by non‑attorney DHS employees using Supreme Court–approved form petitions) and sought termination of mother’s residual parental rights under Va. Code § 16.1‑283(C)(2); JDR court changed goals to adoption and later terminated rights; mother appealed to circuit court.
- Mother moved in circuit court to dismiss petitions signed by non‑attorney DHS staff, to quash subpoenas for her mental‑health records, and contested termination on the merits; circuit court denied the motions and terminated parental rights; this appeal followed.
- The circuit court relied on evidence that mother failed to make substantial therapeutic progress, denied responsibility for abuse, and that the children were stable with relatives seeking adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal should be dismissed for defective notice (missing termination case numbers) | Houston: notice defective; appeal should be dismissed | DHS: notice timely and sufficiently identified termination rulings | Denied dismissal; notice adequately identified cases to be appealed |
| Validity of petitions signed by non‑attorney DHS employees | Houston: petitions signed by non‑attorneys are void; court lacked jurisdiction | DHS: employees may sign Supreme Court–approved form petitions | Petitions valid under Rudolph; signatures did not divest court of jurisdiction |
| Whether court abused discretion in denying motion to quash subpoenas for mother’s mental‑health records | Houston: records privileged, irrelevant; mental condition not truly at issue | DHS: records relevant to compliance/progress under foster‑care plan; court may limit use | Denial affirmed; court found good cause under Va. Code and limited use to case only |
| Whether termination of residual parental rights under §16.1‑283(C)(2) was supported by evidence and in children’s best interests | Houston: she remedied conditions / termination not in best interests; trial court erred | DHS: mother failed to substantially remedy conditions despite services; children stable with adoptive relatives | Affirmed: evidence supported finding mother failed to substantially remedy conditions and termination served children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Rudolph v. City of Newport News Dep’t of Human Servs., 67 Va. App. 140 (Va. Ct. App. 2016) (employees may sign Supreme Court‑approved form petitions)
- Evans v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 339 (Va. Ct. App. 2012) (notice of appeal must timely and adequately identify the case; insubstantial defects not fatal)
- Roberson v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 396 (Va. 2010) (two mandatory aspects of notice: timeliness and identity of case)
- Deahl v. Winchester Dep’t of Social Servs., 224 Va. 664 (Va. 1983) (child present and testifying about termination must be treated under age‑of‑discretion framework)
- Hawks v. Dinwiddie Dep’t of Social Servs., 25 Va. App. 247 (Va. Ct. App. 1997) (trial court has discretion to determine "age of discretion" and party must offer child testimony to trigger inquiry)
- Toms v. Hanover Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 257 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) (termination under §16.1‑283 reviewed with deference; focus on parent's demonstrated failure to make reasonable changes)