Janette Campbell & Wessell Campbell v. Lynchburg Department of Social Services
1401163
| 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; maternal grandparents Janette and Wessell Campbell (living in Miami) sought custody.
- The Campbells traveled to Lynchburg, filed custody petitions (May 2012, Nov 2013), visited sporadically, and appealed an adverse juvenile court ICPC-based dismissal to circuit court.
- A 2016 Florida ICPC reinvestigation approved placement only for the two infants (N.J.1, N.J.2) but questioned best interests because the children were bonded to foster parents and contact with the Campbells was infrequent.
- Expert testimony showed N.J.1 had anxiety/hypervigilance and N.J.2 had reactive attachment disorder requiring therapeutic parenting; both were securely attached to foster caregivers and likely to suffer harm if removed.
- The circuit court dismissed the Campbells’ petitions for all children, finding the Campbells failed to meet Code §§ 16.1‑282.1(A1) and 16.1‑283(A1) (willing/qualified, continuous relationship, permanence, protection), and entered an order April 29, 2016; the Campbells appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Campbells preserved challenge to dismissal for E.C. and J.C. | Campbells argued circuit court erred dismissing all petitions. | LDSS and others noted no objection at hearing and that ICPC home study did not approve placement. | Waiver: Campbells failed to object or present evidence about E.C./J.C.; appeal as to those children waived. |
| Whether Campbells satisfied Code §§ 16.1‑282.1(A1)/16.1‑283(A1) for N.J.1 and N.J.2 | Campbells testified they met statutory factors and that custody would be in children’s best interests. | LDSS presented evidence of sporadic/inadequate contact, poor visits, and children’s therapeutic needs and bonds to foster family. | Held: Circuit court did not err — Campbells failed to prove they were willing/qualified and able to maintain a continuous relationship; petitions dismissed. |
| Whether removing N.J.1 and N.J.2 from foster caregivers was in best interests | Campbells contended transfer to them would be better. | LDSS relied on expert that removal would cause regression/panic and harm attachments. | Held: Best interests favored leaving children with foster caregivers; change would be detrimental. |
| Whether continuance should have been granted to complete therapeutic foster certification | Campbells/parents sought continuance to complete program and reassess ICPC approval. | Court noted case pending nearly four years and ICPC requirement; denied continuance. | Held: Denial not an abuse of discretion; related relief would not alter outcome for N.J.1/N.J.2. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boatright v. Wise Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 64 Va. App. 71, 764 S.E.2d 724 (Va. Ct. App.) (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.) (trial court broad discretion in child-welfare best-interest determinations)
- Toms v. Hanover Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 257, 616 S.E.2d 765 (Va. Ct. App.) (ore tenus findings will not be disturbed unless plainly wrong)
- Lynchburg Div. of Soc. Servs. v. Cook, 276 Va. 465, 666 S.E.2d 361 (Va.) (foster-care statutory process requires four specific findings before transferring custody from foster care)
- Petry v. Petry, 41 Va. App. 782, 589 S.E.2d 458 (Va. Ct. App.) (past behavior as indicator of future parenting performance)
- Winfield v. Urquhart, 25 Va. App. 688, 492 S.E.2d 464 (Va. Ct. App.) (past relationships over meaningful period inform likely future conduct)