Merley Jean Dorestal v. Spotsylvania County Department of Social Services, 0128172

Mother (Merley Jean Dorestal) previously had parental rights involuntarily terminated to two older children; one termination occurred months before the events here.
On August 5, 2015 police responded to a domestic violence incident at parents’ home where both parents were intoxicated, the home smelled of marijuana, and hazardous conditions (exposed tack strips, trash, beer bottles) were present; parents were arrested.
A Department of Social Services (DSS) social worker learned mother admitted regular marijuana use; mother’s adult daughter and her boyfriend had been smoking marijuana in presence of the child and were charged with possession.
DSS removed the infant P.L. from the home and placed her in foster care; relatives contacted (198 letters) but maternal aunt’s ICPC/home study failed and other potential relatives were unsuitable.
The JDR court adjudicated P.L. abused/neglected (including jurisdiction based on prior adjudication of another child), terminated parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(E)(i), and set adoption as the permanency goal; the circuit court affirmed after a trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DSS made a prima facie case supporting emergency removal / whether trial court erred in denying mother’s motion to strike	Mother: insufficient evidence of abuse/neglect; no actual injury to child; removal unjustified	DSS: chaotic, unsafe home, parental intoxication and drug use, unsuitable relatives, substantial risk to child	Denied. Court found evidence supported emergency removal and denial of motion to strike
Whether emergency removal was appropriate (child should have been left with adult daughter)	Mother: child could have stayed with adult daughter instead of removal	DSS: adult daughter and boyfriend were charged with possession and thus unsuitable; home unsafe	Denied. Court found adult daughter unsuitable and home unsafe for child
Whether termination of parental rights under §16.1-283(E)(i) was proper	Mother: trial court failed to expressly find termination was in child’s best interests	DSS: mother’s parental rights to siblings had been involuntarily terminated; termination appropriate and order states child’s best interests	Affirmed. §16.1-283(E)(i) met (prior involuntary terminations) and written order states best interests finding

Logan v. Fairfax Cty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 409 S.E.2d 460 (1991) (standard that child’s best interests is paramount and appellate review of ore tenus findings)
Jenkins v. Winchester Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 12 Va. App. 1178, 409 S.E.2d 16 (1991) (definition of "substantial risk" does not require proof of actual harm)
Martin v. Pittsylvania Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 348 S.E.2d 13 (1986) (deference to trial court’s ore tenus findings)
McMillion v. Dryvit Systems, Inc., 262 Va. 463, 552 S.E.2d 364 (2001) (court speaks through its written orders)
Anonymous B v. Anonymous C, 51 Va. App. 657, 660 S.E.2d 307 (2008) (same principle regarding written orders)