Daniel Lee Brooks v. Roanoke City Department of Social Services
0437173
| Va. Ct. App. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- Father (Daniel Lee Brooks) and mother have long histories of substance abuse and domestic violence; Department involvement since 2005 and prior involuntary terminations of four of father’s children in 2007–2008.
- Child M.B. born Aug. 2011; placed in Department custody in April 2012 after parents tested positive for cocaine and domestic violence incidents; parents received services and regained custody in Oct. 2013.
- In Oct. 2016 both parents tested positive for cocaine and methamphetamines after reports of drug use and a gun incident; M.B. was removed and placed in foster care in Oct. 2016.
- Department informed parents it would not provide further services but arranged supervised visitation; parents did not engage with recommended community treatment according to the social worker.
- Department petitioned to terminate father’s parental rights under Va. Code § 16.1-283(B), (C)(2), and (E); JDR court and then the circuit court terminated rights; father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brooks) | Defendant's Argument (Dept. / GAL) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported termination under § 16.1-283(E)(i) (prior involuntary terminations of siblings) | Father argued the evidence did not justify termination under § E | Dept. pointed to father’s prior involuntary terminations of four children and ongoing substance/domestic violence problems | Affirmed: termination sustained under § 16.1-283(E)(i) |
| Whether evidence supported termination under §§ 16.1-283(B) and (C)(2) | Father contended evidence was insufficient under these subsections | Dept. asserted child’s best interests and father’s history supported termination | Court did not address these grounds because § (E) alone sustained the judgment |
| Whether court erred by not determining father received adequate rehabilitative services while child was in custody | Father argued lack of explicit finding on adequacy of services required reversal | Dept. argued father had ample services historically and opportunities to engage; court recognized services were provided | Rejected: court found father had multiple prior services and opportunities; no reversible error |
| Whether trial court abused discretion considering child’s best interests | Father argued court misapplied best-interest standard | Dept. and GAL presented evidence child was thriving in foster care with improved attendance and services | Affirmed: court’s best-interest determination not plainly wrong |
Key Cases Cited
- Logan v. Fairfax Cty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 409 S.E.2d 460 (Va. Ct. App.) (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 (Va. Ct. App.) (trial court findings on ore tenus evidence entitled to great weight)
- Fields v. Dinwiddie Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 614 S.E.2d 656 (Va. Ct. App.) (affirmance may rest on any alternative statutory ground sustaining termination)
- Howard v. Commonwealth, 21 Va. App. 473, 465 S.E.2d 142 (Va. Ct. App.) (preservation of issues via closing argument in a bench trial)
Conclusion: The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s termination of father’s parental rights, relying on § 16.1-283(E)(i) given prior involuntary terminations and the child’s best interests.