Rochelle Lee Eaton v. Washington County Department of Social Services
66 Va. App. 317
| Va. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- C.O., born 2002, was removed from Rochelle Lee Eaton’s custody in Tennessee in 2005; TDCS found ongoing and future substantial harm and in 2010 granted permanent custody to C.O.’s great-uncle and aunt (the Hobbs).
- C.O. lived with the Hobbs until 2013; when they could no longer care for her, Washington County DSS (WCDSS) took emergency custody and placed C.O. in foster care.
- WCDSS sought termination of Eaton’s residual parental rights and a permanency plan of adoption; after juvenile court proceedings, Eaton appealed and a circuit-court trial was held in June 2015.
- Evidence at trial included WCDSS testimony about limited Virginia-provided services and supervised monthly visits, Eaton’s testimony about her living situation and disability, TDCS records and Tennessee orders showing long-term involvement and prior findings that Eaton could not safely parent C.O., and C.O.’s testimony preferring to be adopted by her foster family.
- The circuit court found by clear and convincing evidence that termination was proper under Va. Code § 16.1-283(B) (abuse/neglect finding and inability to correct conditions) and approved the adoption goal; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Eaton) | Defendant's Argument (WCDSS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was clear and convincing under § 16.1-283(B) that Eaton was responsible for conditions creating abuse/neglect and that those conditions were unlikely to be corrected | Tennessee problems predated WCDSS involvement; Eaton argued she was not personally responsible for the conditions leading to the 2013 foster placement and Virginia agency could not rely on old Tennessee findings | WCDSS: court may consider prior agency efforts and Tennessee findings under § 16.1-283(B)(2); evidence showed longstanding inability to meet child’s needs | Held: Affirmed. Court may consider prior TDCS history; clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § 16.1-283(B) |
| Whether WCDSS had to provide rehabilitative services in Virginia before termination under § 16.1-283(B) | Eaton argued absence of Virginia services or recent six‑month efforts made termination inappropriate | WCDSS: § 16.1-283(B) requires consideration of prior rehabilitation efforts by any agency but does not impose a duty to provide services in Virginia before termination | Held: Affirmed. No requirement that WCDSS provide services in Virginia before a § 16.1-283(B) termination; prior out-of-state services are properly considered |
| Whether evidence should be confined to the six months before WCDSS’s petition (relying on Copeland v. Todd) | Eaton urged focus on the six months prior to the permanency petition and reliance on Todd’s six-month rule | WCDSS: Todd involves adoption statute and is inapposite; § 16.1-283(B) has different temporal scope and statutory text | Held: Affirmed. Todd does not control § 16.1-283(B) proceedings; court may consider the full rehabilitative history |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interests absent expert testimony | Eaton claimed lack of expert testimony meant WCDSS failed to prove best interests | WCDSS relied on the total record including child’s testimony, foster family stability, long history of unsuccessful rehabilitation, and statutory best‑interest factors | Held: Affirmed. Trial court may weigh non-expert evidence (including child’s preference and service history); expert testimony not required to find termination in child’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Fields v. Dinwiddie Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1 (presumption trial court weighed evidence; appellate review limited)
- Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326 (trial court discretion in child welfare decisions)
- Toms v. Hanover Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 257 (§ 16.1-283(B) does not require the department to provide services before termination; court must consider rehabilitation efforts)
- Farrell v. Warren Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 59 Va. App. 375 (distinguishing subsections B and C; services required in (C) but not necessarily in (B))
- Copeland v. Todd, 282 Va. 183 (six-month timing rule applies to adoption statute at issue there, not to § 16.1-283(B) termination proceedings)