Dung Thi Thach and Carlos Mendoza v. Arlington County Department of Human Services, 63 Va. App. 157

J.M. was removed from Thach in August 2010 due to Thach's substance abuse and inadequate care.
Mendoza did not live with J.M. at removal and DHS initially offered him limited services; no accusations of abuse by Mendoza were found.
JDR court removed J.M. and set reunification goals primarily focused on Thach; Mendoza began limited involvement and later progressed to parenting classes and housing efforts.
By mid-2012, DHS considered Mendoza supportive and capable for care of J.M. and J.T., but Thach's ongoing issues stalled reunification.
In November 2012 and March 2013, the JDR court shifted goals toward adoption and terminated Thach and Mendoza’s parental rights, respectively.
The circuit court ultimately terminated Thach’s rights but reversed Mendoza’s termination, holding insufficient evidence that Mendoza failed to remedy conditions or that termination was in J.M.’s best interests at that time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DHS proved by clear and convincing evidence Mendoza failed to remedy the conditions.	DHS contends Mendoza failed to remedy conditions within 12 months without good cause.	Mendoza argues substantial progress occurred and DHS delayed services, undermining the remedying requirement.	Insufficient evidence to terminate Mendoza; failure to remedy not proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Whether termination was in J.M.'s best interests given Mendoza's progress and circumstances.	Best interests require termination due to stability concerns and risk if left with Mendoza.	Mendoza argues continued parental involvement was feasible and beneficial to J.M. given his progress and lack of abuse.	Best interests alone and with other factors did not justify termination; combined with lack of proven remedy, termination was not supported.

Tackett v. Arlington County Dep’t of Human Servs., 62 Va. App. 296 (2013) (on appeal, court reviews evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party)
Crawley v. Richmond Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 47 Va. App. 572 (2006) (two-prong test for termination: best interests and remedying conditions)
Layne v. Layne, 61 Va. App. 32 (2012) (preservation of parent-child bond; high standard to sever rights)
Copeland v. Todd, 282 Va. 183 (2011) (constitutional liberty interest; preservation when possible)
Harrison v. Tazewell Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 42 Va. App. 149 (2004) (twelve-month time limit and substantial progress considerations)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (fundamental parental rights require more than best interests)