Patricia Tackett v. Arlington County Department of Human Services
62 Va. App. 296
| Va. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- A.O., born 1999, lived with maternal grandmother (Heffernan) from birth; grandmother had Maryland guardianship early on. DHS removed A.O. from grandmother in July 2010 after concerns about instability, homelessness, truancy, and an incident of shoplifting.
- JDR court found A.O. abused/neglected, approved a foster-care plan (Sept. 2010) with goal “return to own home” (grandmother) but required grandmother to complete a psychological evaluation and verify housing/employment; grandmother failed to comply.
- Mother had extensive criminal/drug history, was intermittently incarcerated, initially told DHS she could not care for A.O., later sought custody but repeatedly equivocated and did not complete recommended evaluations/services.
- A.O. lived with successive foster families, displayed trauma-related behavioral issues; clinicians found impaired judgment, manipulation by family influences, and need for treatment; DHS changed permanency goal to adoption in July–Aug. 2011.
- JDR court terminated mother’s residual parental rights (Dec. 2011). Mother and grandmother appealed to the circuit court; circuit court conducted a five-day de novo hearing (June 2012), affirmed termination, approved adoption goal, denied counsel in addition to the guardian ad litem for A.O., ordered no contact between A.O. and mother/grandmother until A.O. turned 18, and denied grandmother’s custody petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused discretion by refusing to appoint separate counsel for A.O. in addition to the GAL | Mother/grandmother: A.O.’s expressed wishes conflicted with GAL; child needed independent counsel | DHS: appointment of additional counsel is discretionary; GAL complied with Rule 8:6 and relayed A.O.’s wishes | Court: No abuse of discretion; GAL adequately represented A.O.; additional counsel not required |
| Whether A.O. (age 12) was of "age of discretion" to veto termination | Mother/grandmother: A.O. demonstrated maturity and understanding; court should have treated her objections as dispositive | DHS: Evidence showed manipulation by grandmother and impaired judgment; child not mature enough | Court: No abuse of discretion; record shows A.O. lacked capacity, information, intelligence, and judgment to exercise veto |
| Whether termination of mother’s residual parental rights was supported (Va. Code § 16.1‑283(C)(1),(C)(2)) | Mother: DHS failed to provide reasonable/appropriate services; she had housing/support by hearing and sought custody | DHS: Mother repeatedly said she could not care for A.O., failed to maintain contact or complete evaluations; reasonable efforts were made given mother’s disinterest | Court: Affirmed termination; clear and convincing evidence mother failed to maintain contact/plan and was unable/unwilling to remedy conditions within statutory periods |
| Whether grandmother had standing to contest termination and whether her Maryland guardianship prevented goal change to adoption | Grandmother: As named guardian in Maryland and prior custodian, she can challenge termination and her consent is required for adoption | DHS: Parental rights belong to parents; grandmother lacked standing to defend parents’ rights; termination of parental rights and custody orders supersede prior guardianship under Virginia jurisdiction | Court: Grandmother lacked standing to challenge termination of mother's rights; her foreign guardianship terminated by operation of Virginia proceedings and did not bar adoption |
Key Cases Cited
- Richmond Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Crawley, 47 Va. App. 572 (Va. Ct. App.) (standard for reviewing evidence on parental-rights appeals)
- Hawks v. Dinwiddie Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 25 Va. App. 247 (Va. Ct. App.) (factors for determining whether a child under 14 is of age of discretion)
- Logan v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123 (Va. Ct. App.) (child’s best interests is paramount; deference to trial court findings)
- Harris v. Lynchburg Div. of Soc. Servs., 223 Va. 235 (Va.) (DSS must offer services unless parent is unwilling/disinterested; lack of offered services can defeat termination case)
- L.G. v. Amherst County DSS, 41 Va. App. 51 (Va. Ct. App.) (purpose of 12-month statutory limit to prevent foster-care drift)
- Toms v. Hanover Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 257 (Va. Ct. App.) (reliability of past conduct to predict future compliance)
- Peple v. Peple, 5 Va. App. 414 (Va. Ct. App.) (deference to ore tenus factfinding)
- Bitar v. Rahman, 272 Va. 130 (Va.) (waiver of evidentiary objections by failure to timely object)