Marc Louis v. Spotsylvania County Department of Social Services, 0127172

Father (Marc Louis) and mother are biological parents of P.L.; father’s parental rights to an older child (D.L.) were involuntarily terminated shortly before P.L. was removed.
On August 5, 2015, police responded to a domestic violence incident at parents’ home; both were intoxicated, officers smelled marijuana, and the home was in unsafe condition.
The Department of Social Services removed P.L., placed her in foster care, searched for relatives (ICPC process for a maternal aunt failed), and the JDR court adjudicated P.L. abused/neglected and later terminated parental rights and set adoption as the permanency goal.
Parents appealed to the circuit court; at the circuit hearing father moved for a continuance based on pending criminal matters and later contested appointment timing of the guardian ad litem. The court denied continuance, reappointed the guardian ad litem at the hearing, and proceeded.
The circuit court terminated father’s parental rights under Va. Code § 16.1-283(E)(i) (residual rights terminated for a sibling) based on clear and convincing evidence and found termination in the child’s best interests.
Father appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing denial of continuance (Fifth Amendment self-incrimination), improper guardian ad litem appointment, and error in terminating parental rights; the Court of Appeals summarily affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Father)	Defendant's Argument (DSS)	Held
Whether denial of a continuance to await resolution of pending criminal matters violated father's rights	Denial limited his ability to defend, violated Fifth Amendment, warranted reversal	Father failed to preserve objection and offers no good-cause or ends-of-justice showing	Not considered on appeal; issues forfeited and no miscarriage of justice shown
Whether proceeding when guardian ad litem was reappointed the day of trial was improper	Trial was defective because GAL appointment occurred after trial began and notice was lacking	GAL was reappointed that day, participated fully, and father raised no contemporaneous objection	Not considered on appeal due to forfeiture; GAL’s participation negated prejudice
Whether termination under Va. Code § 16.1-283(E)(i) was supported by evidence	Father contended termination improper, challenged procedural aspects of prior JDR proceedings	DSS pointed to prior involuntary termination of sibling and evidence of unsafe, drug-exposed home showing best interests satisfied	Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § 16.1-283(E)(i)
Whether additional procedural defects in JDR proceedings required dismissal	Father argued prior proceedings lacked required best-interest findings, undermining later termination	DSS relied on existing adjudications and circuit-court findings; father did not assign this as error	Not addressed on appeal because it was not an assigned error

Logan v. Fairfax Cty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 409 S.E.2d 460 (Va. Ct. App. 1991) (appellate review views evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party below)
M. Morgan Cherry & Assocs. v. Cherry, 38 Va. App. 693, 568 S.E.2d 391 (Va. Ct. App. 2002) (Rule 5A:18 waiver principles apply where party fails to object without good cause)
Lacey v. Commonwealth, 54 Va. App. 32, 675 S.E.2d 846 (Va. Ct. App. 2009) (explaining narrow scope of ends-of-justice exception to preservation rules)
Charles v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 14, 613 S.E.2d 432 (Va. 2005) (ends-of-justice exception requires showing that application is necessary to avoid a grave injustice)
Ball v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 754, 273 S.E.2d 790 (Va. 1981) (ends-of-justice exception applies only in rare instances)
Hillcrest Manor Nursing Home v. Underwood, 35 Va. App. 31, 542 S.E.2d 785 (Va. Ct. App. 2001) (issues not stated among assignments of error will not be considered on appeal)