Keith Boatright v. Wise County Department of Social Services, 64 Va. App. 71

This Virginia Court of Appeals case affirms a Wise County DSS termination of Keith Boatright's parental rights as to C.B., born May 16, 2004.
C.B. was originally with the mother but was removed due to mother's apparent drug use; C.B. was later placed with father, who struggled with alcohol abuse and intoxication with the child present.
C.B. was removed from father's custody and placed in foster care in April 2012; DSS filed an abuse and neglect petition in April 2012, and the JDR court found abuse and neglect in May 2012.
Foster care plans were filed with goals of return to home, later changed to adoption; permanency planning hearings were scheduled, and involuntary termination petitions were filed in June 2013.
On August 20, 2013, JDR court entered orders terminating parental rights of both parents and approving a foster care plan with the goal of adoption; father appealed to circuit court, which granted a continuance at DSS's request for trial scheduling.
In March 2014, the circuit court remanded to JDR, then accepted stipulations regarding the entrustment agreement; after father revoked the entrustment, the circuit court ultimately terminated residual parental rights on April 15, 2014, with a motion to reconsider denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 16.1-296(D) is mandatory or directory	Boatright argues failure to hear within 90 days harmed him.	Wise County argues no prejudice; statute is procedural.	Statute is procedural; no prejudice shown.
Whether the continuance granted January 30, 2014 was an abuse of discretion	Boatright suffered prejudice from extended delay.	No prejudice; father acquiesced.	No abuse; no prejudice shown.
Whether the circuit court erred by not addressing the foster care plan and permanency order on appeal	Procedural steps require consideration of foster plan and permanency order.	Court followed statutory scheme; procedures were complied with.	No error; proper adherence to statutes.
Whether the court erred by relying on stipulations from entrustment rather than hearing testimony	Right to testimony should have been provided after revocation of entrustment.	Stipulations valid and admissible; revocation effects not triggering new evidence.	Court did not err; reliance on stipulations appropriate.

Congdon v. Congdon, 40 Va. App. 255, 578 S.E.2d 833 (2003) (evidence must be viewed in light favorable to prevailing party)
Wactor v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 375, 564 S.E.2d 160 (2002) (discard conflicting evidence on appeal)
Najera v. Chesapeake Div. of Soc. Servs., 48 Va. App. 237, 629 S.E.2d 721 (2006) (preponderance standard for foster care plan recommendations)
Marrison v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep’t of Family Servs., 59 Va. App. 61, 717 S.E.2d 146 (2011) (mandatory vs. directory analysis of statutory timetables)
Jamborsky v. Baskins, 247 Va. 506, 442 S.E.2d 638 (1994) (shall language is directory unless contrary intent shown)
Carter v. Ancel, 28 Va. App. 76, 502 S.E.2d 149 (1998) (procedural considerations in family law matters)
Myers v. Trice, 86 Va. 835, 11 S.E. 428 (1890) (continuance refusals where justice imperiled)
Haugen v. Shenandoah Valley Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 274 Va. 27, 645 S.E.2d 261 (2007) (continuance rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion with prejudice requirement)
Strong v. Hampton Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 45 Va. App. 317, 610 S.E.2d 873 (2005) (notice and welfare procedures in termination cases)
Burke v. Gale, 193 Va. 130, 67 S.E.2d 917 (1951) (stipulations solidified when entered with consent)