Martin Houston, Sr. v. City of Newport News Department of Human Services, 1532161

Martin Houston, Sr. is the biological father of four children removed from his home after DHS investigators observed significant facial injuries to one child (M.H.3) and other abuse allegations by the children.
DHS created foster care plans requiring parenting/anger-management classes, individual and family therapy, and consent to release therapy records; Houston completed some services but intermittently stopped therapy and refused to initially authorize DHS access to later therapy records.
The children were placed with maternal relatives (the Langs) who sought to adopt; DHS changed the permanency goal to adoption and filed petitions to terminate parental rights.
The JDR court terminated Houston’s residual parental rights under Code § 16.1‑283(C) and the circuit court affirmed after hearings that included testimony from DHS staff and therapists and Houston’s own testimony.
Houston appealed, arguing (1) petitions were invalid because signed by non‑attorney social workers, (2) the court erred in denying his motion to quash a subpoena for mental health records, and (3) termination lacked clear and convincing evidence that he failed to remedy the conditions and was not in the children’s best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Houston)	Defendant's Argument (DHS)	Held
Validity of DHS petitions signed by non‑attorney social workers	Petitions are void as unauthorized practice of law; courts lacked jurisdiction	Statutory/legislative intent allows local DSS employees to file approved form petitions	Denied — petitions valid where they were Supreme Court–approved form petitions (Rudolph controlling)
Motion to quash subpoena for mental‑health records	Records are privileged, disclosure invades privacy and are irrelevant	Records are relevant to therapy requirements in foster plan and DHS showed good cause; court may limit use	Denied — court properly found good cause under Code § 32.1‑127.1:03(H)(6) and restricted use/dissemination
Termination under Code § 16.1‑283(C)(2) — failure to remedy conditions	DHS failed to prove Houston willfully failed to remedy conditions; termination not in children’s best interests	Houston repeatedly lacked insight, sporadic therapy, refused access to records, prima facie failure to make substantial progress; children stable with adoptive relatives	Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence Houston failed to remedy conditions and termination served children’s best interests
Age‑of‑discretion issue (children’s right to object)	Two oldest children were of age/discretion to object; court erred	No timely objection by Houston in circuit court; appellate review barred	Waived — Houston did not raise the issue below so appellate review barred

Boatright v. Wise Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 64 Va. App. 71, 764 S.E.2d 724 (Va. Ct. App.) (standard for viewing evidence in child‑welfare appeals)
Rudolph v. City of Newport News Dep’t of Human Servs., 67 Va. App. 140, 793 S.E.2d 831 (Va. Ct. App.) (DHS employees may sign Supreme Court–approved form petitions)
Ghameshlouy v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 379, 689 S.E.2d 698 (Va.) (notice‑of‑appeal sufficiency; insubstantial defects do not defeat appellate jurisdiction)
Thach v. Arlington Cty. Dep’t of Human Servs., 63 Va. App. 157, 754 S.E.2d 922 (Va. Ct. App.) (standard and deference for termination of parental rights under Code § 16.1‑283)
Toms v. Hanover Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 257, 616 S.E.2d 765 (Va. Ct. App.) (focus of § 16.1‑283(C)(2) on parent’s remedial efforts)