Eric Adam Quesenberry v. Giles County Department of Social Services, 1297203

Giles County DSS removed three children (ages 7, 6, 3) in Sept. 2019 after father appeared impaired at pickup and DSS found unsafe home conditions (clutter, mattresses on floor, black mold); father agreed to a safety plan and moved the children to his girlfriend’s home.
Father admitted Suboxone use after a drug screen; subsequent drug tests in Nov. 2019 and Feb. 2020 were positive for methamphetamine; father participated in a Suboxone program but refused recommended SAFE Team treatment.
DSS required housing, employment, a comprehensive evaluation, substance-abuse treatment, and parenting classes; father completed some services (evaluation, parenting classes, Pulaski Medical Group program) but continued to test positive and resisted more intensive treatment.
The children entered and remained in the same foster home (over 13 months); they showed developmental, speech, and attachment disorders (including reactive attachment disorder for L.Q.), received therapy and made substantial progress; foster parents are willing to adopt.
The JDR court terminated father’s rights and set adoption as goal; the circuit court affirmed termination under Va. Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), finding father failed to remedy conditions within a reasonable time and that termination served the children’s best interests.

Issue	Quesenberry	Giles County DSS	Held
Whether termination under Va. Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) was appropriate	Father: he remedied housing, completed parenting classes and evaluation, engaged in treatment and visits, so he substantially remedied conditions	DSS: father continued to use meth, refused intensive treatment, failed to address children’s therapeutic needs or contact their providers; children improved in foster care and need stability	Court: affirmed termination under § 16.1-283(C)(2); father did not substantially remedy conditions within a reasonable time
Whether termination was in the children’s best interests	Father: reunification better; children’s problems predated foster care and parents were emerging from separation	DSS: children have serious attachment and developmental needs; parents likely triggers; foster home provides stable, therapeutic environment and adoption is appropriate	Court: termination is in the children’s best interests given their needs, progress in foster care, and lack of parental ability to manage long-term therapy/behavioral issues

Yafi v. Stafford Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 69 Va. App. 539 (2018) (standards for reviewing termination and importance of parent’s failure to make reasonable changes)
Thach v. Arlington Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 63 Va. App. 157 (2014) (appellate review standard on termination appeals)
Castillo v. Loudoun Cnty. Dep’t of Fam. Servs., 68 Va. App. 547 (2018) (trial court presumed to weigh evidence and consider child’s best interests)
Fauquier Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Ridgeway, 59 Va. App. 185 (2011) (weight given to ore tenus factfinding)
Martin v. Pittsylvania Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15 (1986) (factfinding deference)
Toms v. Hanover Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 257 (2005) (§ 16.1-283(C) focuses on failure to make reasonable changes)
Tackett v. Arlington Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 62 Va. App. 296 (2013) (children shouldn’t wait indefinitely for a parent to become able to resume responsibilities)
Kaywood v. Halifax Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535 (1990) (importance of timely permanency)
Levick v. MacDougall, 294 Va. 283 (2017) (standard for unsealing sealed records when necessary for appellate review)