Daniel Thornsbury v. Chesterfield-Colonial Heights Department of Social Services, 2035162

Father Daniel Thornsbury was sole custodian of daughters E.T. (2004) and J.T. (2006); multiple CPS referrals alleged substance use, neglect, and exposure to an alleged sexual abuser in the mother’s home.
Department took emergency custody October 23, 2015; JDR court approved a foster care plan (goal: return) requiring abstinence from alcohol/illegal drugs and engagement in substance-abuse treatment.
Thornsbury repeatedly tested positive for cocaine/marijuana, missed or refused many drug screens, and failed to complete treatment despite offered transportation and services.
He also failed to cooperate with the sexual-abuse investigation (allowed contact with alleged perpetrator, declined interviews).
After ~13 months in foster care, the Department changed the plan to adoption and petitioned to terminate his parental rights; JDR court and, on de novo review, the circuit court terminated residual parental rights.

Issue	Thornsbury’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
Whether termination was in the children’s best interests under Code § 16.1‑283(C)	Termination was not shown by clear and convincing evidence; he had positive visits and asked for more time	Father’s ongoing substance abuse, failure to cooperate with investigations, and children’s stability in foster care make termination in best interests	Court affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported termination as in children’s best interests
Whether Thornsbury was unwilling/unable without good cause within a reasonable period (≤12 months) to substantially remedy conditions that led to foster care under Code § 16.1‑283(C)(2)	He made some progress, cited his mother’s death as an extraordinary circumstance and requested 3 more months to comply	He had already failed many drug tests, refused many screens, missed treatment and meetings; past pattern showed unlikely remediation in brief extension	Court affirmed: father failed to substantially remedy conditions within the statutory period; extra time not warranted

Fields v. Dinwiddie Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1 (presumption that trial court weighed evidence and statutory criteria in best‑interest determinations)
Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326 (trial court decisions on child custody matters given broad discretion)
Harrison v. Tazewell Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 42 Va. App. 149 (factors to consider in best‑interest analysis)
Barkey v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 662 (same factors and framework cited for child welfare decisions)
Linkous v. Kingery, 10 Va. App. 45 (past parental conduct is indicative of likely future behavior)
Kaywood v. Halifax Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535 (children should not wait indefinitely for a parent to remediate deficiencies)