Jocelyn Lee Geouge v. Jason Barry Traylor, Dustin Griffith and Tiffany Vadella-Griffith
0559172
| Va. Ct. App. | Dec 27, 2017Background
- Mother Jocelyn Geouge, incarcerated with a long history of substance abuse and convictions, gave birth to L.T. in Oct. 2015 while in custody; father Jason Traylor took physical custody and shortly thereafter transferred custody to Dustin and Tiffany Griffith (prospective adoptive parents).
- Geouge initially sought custody/visitation pro se; JDR court denied her visitation and later accepted Traylor’s consent and found Geouge was withholding consent contrary to the child’s best interests.
- Geouge appealed to the Powhatan Circuit Court (trial de novo). At trial she raised, among other things, possible Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applicability based on alleged Cherokee ancestry and argued the court should not waive her consent under Va. Code § 63.2‑1205.
- The circuit court denied a stay to investigate ICWA, concluding Geouge had not asserted a good‑faith belief that L.T. was an “Indian child” and appellees had contacted federally‑recognized Cherokee tribes which each said L.T. was not eligible for membership.
- After a two‑day trial with testimony (including an expert on attachment who found L.T. securely attached to appellees), the circuit court found Geouge withheld consent contrary to L.T.’s best interests, waived her consent, and granted custody to appellees; the subsequent adoption was entered and Geouge’s appeals followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Geouge) | Defendant's Argument (Griffiths/Traylor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICWA applied / whether court erred in failing to give ICWA notice | Geouge argued her motion that ICWA “might apply” sufficed to trigger ICWA notice and a stay to investigate ancestry | Appellees argued Geouge bore the burden to show ICWA applied and she never asserted a good‑faith belief that L.T. was an Indian child; they investigated and tribes said L.T. not eligible | Court held ICWA did not apply: mere possibility was insufficient, Geouge never asserted a good‑faith belief and tribes confirmed non‑eligibility; denial of stay and no ICWA notice error affirmed |
| Whether circuit court erred in finding Geouge withheld consent contrary to best interests (Va. Code § 63.2‑1203/1205) | Geouge argued the court failed to properly apply § 63.2‑1205 factors, ignored her rehabilitation and support plans, and undervalued appellees’ thwarting conduct | Appellees argued the court properly considered the statutory factors (efforts, ability to assume custody, thwarting by others, relationship, custodial stability, effect of change) and substantial evidence supported waiver of mother’s consent | Court held trial court did not abuse discretion: factual findings supported under § 63.2‑1205 and waiver of consent was proper |
| Whether trial court misinterpreted JDR visitation order to prohibit visits (impacting appellees’ conduct) | Geouge claimed circuit court erred by treating the prior JDR denial of visitation as a prohibition affecting appellees’ actions | Appellees noted any misunderstanding was theirs; circuit court said it did not treat the JDR order as an absolute prohibition | Court held no error: the circuit court did not make the misconstrued ruling Geouge alleged |
| Whether lack of statutory personal service of notice of adoption required reversal of adoption order | Geouge argued she was not personally served with the adoption petition 15 days before adoption as required when consent is waived under § 63.2‑1203 | Appellees argued prior proceedings deciding waiver and full litigation put Geouge on notice; additional personal service would have been pro forma and would not have changed outcome | Court held any failure to provide additional statutory notice was harmless: Geouge fully litigated consent issues and outcome would not have differed |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights are fundamental liberty interests)
- Copeland v. Todd, 282 Va. 183 (2011) (adoption over parental objection must satisfy statutory safeguards; § 63.2‑1203/1205 analysis survives due process scrutiny)
- Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015) (distinction between legislative rules and other agency guidance)
- Bristol Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Welch, 64 Va. App. 34 (2014) (ore tenus findings are afforded deference on appeal)
- Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326 (1990) (appellate review views facts in light most favorable to prevailing party)
- Garst v. Obenchain, 196 Va. 664 (1957) (appellate courts disregard evidence conflicting with prevailing party’s evidence)