Jonathan Burton, Sr. v. Norfolk Department of Human Services, 0958161

Jonathan Burton, Sr. is the father of four children who entered foster care in November 2013 after the mother’s substance abuse; mother’s parental rights were also terminated in JDR court.
NDHS notified Burton of the children’s removal and offered services, including parenting classes and housing/employment referrals, beginning in early 2014.
Burton had not had meaningful contact with the children from 2010–2013; he attended visitations initially but began missing visits in September 2014, was at times incarcerated for failure to pay support, and had at least one visitation suspended on a therapist’s recommendation for inappropriate/disruptive remarks.
Burton lived sporadically in a two‑bedroom apartment with his mother and cousin, did not secure stable documented employment, and waited until August 2015 to submit his first housing application.
Mental‑health professionals testified that all four children have mental/behavioral needs requiring a structured, consistent caregiver and—in light of aggressive/sexualized behaviors—separate bedrooms for some children.
The JDR court adopted a permanency plan terminating Burton’s residual parental rights; the circuit court affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Burton’s Argument	NDHS’ Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient under Va. Code §16.1‑283(C)(1) (parent failed to maintain contact or substantially plan for child’s future for six months after placement)	Burton said missed visits were due to social‑worker suspensions and his incarcerations; he disputed lack of provided referrals	NDHS showed repeated referrals, Burton’s failure to complete services, lack of stable housing/employment, inappropriate visitation conduct	Court held NDHS met its burden; Burton failed to plan/maintain contact for the six‑month period and termination under (C)(1) was proper
Whether evidence was sufficient under Va. Code §16.1‑283(C)(2) (parent unwilling/unable within 12 months to remedy conditions that led to foster care)	Burton relied on Thach to argue that because he wasn’t living in the home when problems occurred, termination was improper	NDHS showed timely notice and service offers, 30 months elapsed with Burton not remedying conditions and refusing/ignoring services	Court distinguished Thach, found Burton had ample time and services but remained unable/unwilling to remedy conditions; termination under (C)(2) was proper

Toms v. Hanover Dep’t. of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 257, 616 S.E.2d 765 (discusses requirement that DSS provide reasonable and appropriate services before termination)
L.G. v. Amherst Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 41 Va. App. 51, 581 S.E.2d 886 (statute contemplates rehabilitative services to correct conditions leading to foster care)
Thach v. Arlington Cty. Dep’t of Human Servs., 63 Va. App. 157, 754 S.E.2d 922 (fact pattern where late services and parental compliance counseled against termination)
Logan v. Fairfax Cty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 409 S.E.2d 460 (appellate standard for ore tenus findings)
Richmond Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Crawley, 47 Va. App. 572, 625 S.E.2d 670 (appellate deference and reasonable inferences to prevailing party)
Eaton v. Washington Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 66 Va. App. 317, 785 S.E.2d 231 (broad trial‑court discretion in child best‑interest determinations)
Fields v. Dinwiddie Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 614 S.E.2d 656 (presumption that trial court weighed evidence and decided based on child’s best interests)
Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 387 S.E.2d 794 (same)
Kaywood v. Halifax Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 394 S.E.2d 492 (delay in reunification harms child's best interests)
Barkey v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 662, 347 S.E.2d 188 (factors to consider in best‑interest analysis)