Janette Campbell & Wessell Campbell v. Lynchburg Department of Social Services
0882163
| Va. Ct. App. | Mar 14, 2017Background
- Four grandchildren (E.C., J.C., N.J.1, N.J.2) removed to foster care in 2012 after abuse/neglect; grandchildren were ages 6, 4, and two infants.
- Maternal grandparents Janette and Wessell Campbell (residents of Miami; owned house in Lynchburg) petitioned for custody and visited sporadically; visits often went poorly and contact after 2013 was minimal.
- Initial ICPC (Florida) report in 2013 found financial/background issues; a second ICPC in 2016 approved placement only for the two infants (N.J.1, N.J.2) but questioned best interests due to bonding with foster family and limited grandparent contact.
- Expert testimony: N.J.1 had anxiety/hypervigilance; N.J.2 diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder requiring therapeutic parenting; both had secure attachments to foster parents; removal would likely cause trauma/regression.
- Circuit court dismissed Campbells’ custody petitions (April 29, 2016), finding they failed to satisfy Code §§ 16.1-282.1(A1) and 16.1-283(A1); Campbells appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Campbell) | Defendant's Argument (LDSS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Campbells preserved challenge to dismissal of petitions for E.C. and J.C. | Campbells contend dismissal of all petitions was erroneous | LDSS argued ICPC disapproval and parties proceeded only as to N.J.1/N.J.2; no objection to dismissal of E.C./J.C. | Waived — Campbells failed to object at trial and proceeded only on N.J.1/N.J.2; Rule 5A:18 bars appellate review |
| Whether Campbells satisfied the statutory foster-care relative-placement factors (Code §§ 16.1-282.1(A1), 16.1-283(A1)) | Campbells testified they met all four factors and that custody would be in children’s best interests | LDSS produced evidence of minimal/poor visitation, lack of ongoing relationship, and lack of understanding of children’s special needs | Held for LDSS — trial court reasonably found Campbells did not satisfy factors (unqualified and not committed to continuous relationship) |
| Whether transfer of custody would be in children’s best interests given attachments to foster parents and therapeutic needs | Campbells argued custody would benefit children and they could provide care in Miami | LDSS and expert evidence emphasized secure attachments to foster parents and severe therapeutic needs, predicting harm from custody change | Court held change not in children’s best interests; removal would be detrimental, so dismissal affirmed |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying continuance to allow completion of therapeutic foster training | Campbells/parents sought continuance expecting near-term certification | LDSS noted ICPC/legal constraints and lengthy pendency; court noted case pending ~4 years and denied continuance | Denial not reversible — court acted within discretion given delay and ICPC limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Boatright v. Wise Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 64 Va. App. 71 (review standard: view evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party)
- Tackett v. Arlington Cty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 62 Va. App. 296 (purpose and effect of Rule 5A:18 preservation requirement)
- Toms v. Hanover Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 257 (deference to trial court on ore tenus evidence in child custody matters)
- Petry v. Petry, 41 Va. App. 782 (past conduct as indicator of future parenting performance)
- Lynchburg Div. of Soc. Servs. v. Cook, 276 Va. 465 (foster-care statutory process requires specific findings before transferring custody to non-prior-family relatives)