Janette Campbell & Wessell Campbell v. Lynchburg Department of Social Services
1403163
| Va. Ct. App. | Mar 14, 2017Background
- Four grandchildren (E.C., J.C., N.J.1, N.J.2) were removed from their parents in 2012 and placed in foster care; the Campbells (maternal grandparents) live in Miami but own a house in Lynchburg.
- The Campbells filed custody petitions and visited the children sporadically; visits were described as chaotic and largely ineffective, and contact after 2013 was minimal.
- Florida ICPC home studies initially reported inadequate income and unresolved background checks; a 2016 ICPC cleared placement for N.J.1 and N.J.2 but recommended against moving E.C. and J.C. because they needed therapeutic foster care.
- Expert testimony: N.J.1 has anxiety/hypervigilance; N.J.2 diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder and bonded to current foster parents; expert warned custody change would be traumatic and worsen N.J.2’s needs.
- The circuit court dismissed the Campbells’ custody petitions for all children, finding they failed to meet statutory factors in Code §§ 16.1-282.1(A1) and 16.1-283(A1); Campbells appealed.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed: (1) Campbells waived challenge as to E.C. and J.C. for failing to object or present evidence, and (2) ample evidence supported the court’s finding that the Campbells did not satisfy the statutory factors for N.J.1 and N.J.2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Campbells preserved challenge to dismissal as to E.C. and J.C. | Campbells argued circuit court erred in dismissing custody petitions for all children. | LDSS and others noted ICPC prevented transfer without approved home study; parties proceeded only on N.J.1/N.J.2. | Waived: Campbells failed to object or present evidence re E.C./J.C.; appellate review refused. |
| Whether relatives satisfied Code §§ 16.1-282.1(A1)/16.1-283(A1) (willing/qualified; positive, continuous relationship; commitment; ability to protect) for N.J.1 and N.J.2 | Campbells testified they met all four statutory factors and were fit custodians; urged custody transfer was in children’s best interest. | LDSS relied on visitation history, ICPC report, and expert testimony showing children’s therapeutic needs and strong attachments to foster parents; argued Campbells unqualified and not continuously involved. | Held for defendant: Court found Campbells failed factors (i) willing/qualified and (ii) willing to have positive, continuous relationship; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether change of custody would be in children’s best interests given attachment and therapeutic needs | Campbells asserted transfer to grandparents in Miami would benefit children. | LDSS and expert showed N.J.2’s reactive attachment disorder and bonding to foster parents; change would be traumatic and harmful. | Held for defendant: evidence supported finding transfer would harm children; best-interest concerns supported denial. |
| Standard of review for circuit court fact findings | Campbells contended court misweighed evidence. | LDSS argued trial court’s credibility and ore tenus findings control on appeal. | Held for defendant: appellate court defers to circuit court’s credibility determinations and will not disturb ore tenus findings unless plainly wrong. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boatright v. Wise Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 64 Va. App. 71, 764 S.E.2d 724 (Va. Ct. App. 2014) (appellate review views evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party).
- Tackett v. Arlington Cty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 62 Va. App. 296, 746 S.E.2d 509 (Va. Ct. App. 2013) (Rule 5A:18 preservation and trial-court factfinding deference).
- Toms v. Hanover Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 257, 616 S.E.2d 765 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) (ore tenus findings will not be disturbed unless plainly wrong).
- Fields v. Dinwiddie Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 614 S.E.2d 656 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) (trial court presumed to have weighed evidence and considered statutory requirements).
- Lynchburg Div. of Soc. Servs. v. Cook, 276 Va. 465, 666 S.E.2d 361 (Va. 2008) (once foster-care process has commenced, transfer to relative requires the four statutory findings).
- Petry v. Petry, 41 Va. App. 782, 589 S.E.2d 458 (Va. Ct. App. 2003) (past conduct as an indicator of future behavior in child-custody context).
- Winfield v. Urquhart, 25 Va. App. 688, 492 S.E.2d 464 (Va. Ct. App. 1997) (past relationships over a meaningful period predict future conduct).