Jacklyn D. Stanley v. Bristol Department of Social Services, 1189163

Background

Children (P.S. and J.Z.) were removed from mother Jacklyn Stanley on December 11, 2013 and placed in foster care; BDSS sought termination of parental rights in May 2016.
Mother has documented mental health impairments requiring stable medication; her stability and participation in therapy were inconsistent after the children’s removal.
Father Jason Stanley had periodic contact from January–September 2014 but was absent for over a year thereafter and did not utilize available services.
Circuit court relied heavily on testimony from psychologist Dr. Erin Jurich‑Finney regarding J.Z.’s special needs and the children’s need for permanency; court found mother had not substantially remedied conditions within the applicable statutory timeframe.
Circuit court terminated mother’s residual parental rights under Va. Code § 16.1‑283(C)(2) and father’s under § 16.1‑283(C)(1); parents appealed arguing insufficiency of evidence on both prongs and that BDSS failed to consider relative placement alternatives.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination was in children’s best interests	Mother: court overly relied on one expert and ignored evidence (counselor, another psychologist) showing she could parent; overall progress supports preservation	BDSS/Court: children (esp. J.Z.) need permanency and stability; expert testimony showed mother could not meet special needs	Court: Best‑interests finding supported by evidence and not plainly wrong; affirmed
Whether mother remedied conditions within 12 months (§16.1‑283(C)(2))	Mother: she stabilized by Dec 11, 2014 (housing, medication, partner support); court limited timeframe improperly	BDSS/Court: mother’s progress was sporadic, not sustained; she failed to stabilize mental health and living arrangements despite more than statutory time	Court: evidence supports that mother failed to substantially remedy conditions; affirmed
Whether father maintained contact / planned for children (§16.1‑283(C)(1))	Father: he wasn’t the cause of original conditions and was making progress; relied on Thach analogy	BDSS/Court: father was absent >1 year, declined services and visits after Sept 2014	Court: father waived some arguments by misframing assignments of error; alternatively, record shows clear‑and‑convincing evidence of abandonment; affirmed
Whether BDSS sufficiently considered relative placement alternatives	Parents: grandmothers had filed custody petitions and BDSS did not investigate placements before termination	BDSS/Court: BDSS conducted relative search; petitions were withdrawn and no vetted relative placement was available	Court: record shows BDSS and court considered relatives and explained why placement was not appropriate; affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Farrell v. Warren Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 59 Va. App. 375, 719 S.E.2d 329 (Va. Ct. App.) (termination is a grave, irreversible action)
Helen W. v. Fairfax Cty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 12 Va. App. 877, 407 S.E.2d 25 (Va. Ct. App.) (recognizing seriousness of terminating parental rights)
Fields v. Dinwiddie Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 614 S.E.2d 656 (Va. Ct. App.) (presumption that trial court weighed evidence and considered statutory requirements)
Logan v. Fairfax Cty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 409 S.E.2d 460 (Va. Ct. App.) (view evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party)
Eaton v. Wash. Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 66 Va. App. 317, 785 S.E.2d 231 (Va. Ct. App.) (trial court’s ore tenus findings entitled to deference)
Crawley v. Richmond Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 47 Va. App. 572, 625 S.E.2d 670 (Va. Ct. App.) (child’s best interest is threshold test under §16.1‑283)
Thach v. Arlington Cty. Dep’t of Human Servs., 63 Va. App. 157, 754 S.E.2d 922 (Va. Ct. App.) (time limits and consideration of post‑period progress)
Welch v. Bristol Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 64 Va. App. 34, 764 S.E.2d 284 (Va. Ct. App.) (two‑prong burden under §16.1‑283(C))
Peple v. Peple, 5 Va. App. 414, 364 S.E.2d 232 (Va. Ct. App.) (no mechanical formula for best‑interests analysis)
Bagley v. City of Richmond Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 59 Va. App. 522, 721 S.E.2d 21 (Va. Ct. App.) (DSS must consider reasonable relative placement options)
Sauer v. Franklin Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 18 Va. App. 769, 446 S.E.2d 640 (Va. Ct. App.) (no duty to investigate every remote relative)
Barkey v. Alexandria Dep’t of Human Servs., 2 Va. App. 662, 347 S.E.2d 188 (Va. Ct. App.) (DSS need not force services on unwilling parent)
L.G. v. Amherst Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 41 Va. App. 51, 581 S.E.2d 886 (Va. Ct. App.) (purpose of twelve‑month statutory limit)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (procedural due process and parental liberty interest in custody)