Rodney Dale Brady, Jr. v. Patrick County Department of Social Services
1600163
| Va. Ct. App. | Jan 31, 2017Background
- Father (Rodney Dale Brady, Jr.) and mother are parents of two children born in 2013 and 2014; the Department had been involved since October 2013 for deplorable home conditions and subsequent complaints.
- Parents tested positive for controlled substances in 2014; the newborn tested positive at birth in September 2014.
- Father received active prison sentences in October 2014 and March 2015 and was incarcerated during much of the proceedings; he expected release in 2017.
- The JDR court terminated both parents’ rights under Code § 16.1‑283(B) and (C)(2); father appealed to the circuit court, which also terminated his parental rights.
- The circuit court found parental evasion of the Department, lack of adequate contact, persistent drug use, and that children were thriving in foster care with prospective adoptive parents.
- On appeal to the Court of Appeals, father argued termination was based on his incarceration and not the children’s best interests; the Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was improper because based on father’s incarceration | Brady argued termination rested on his incarceration rather than children’s best interests | Department and circuit court relied on parents’ evasion, lack of contact, persistent drug use, and children’s stable foster placements | Court refused to consider the argument because father failed to preserve it at trial (Rule 5A:18); affirmed termination |
| Whether termination was contrary to children’s best interests | Brady argued termination did not serve children’s best interests | Court found children doing well in foster care with prospective adoptive parents and parents’ conduct prevented reunification | Same as above — appellate review foreclosed by preservation rule; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Logan v. Fairfax Cty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 409 S.E.2d 460 (Va. Ct. App. 1991) (appellate view-of-evidence standard)
- Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 494 S.E.2d 484 (Va. Ct. App. 1998) (arguments not presented to trial court ordinarily not considered on appeal)
- Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 404 S.E.2d 736 (Va. Ct. App. 1991) (en banc) (purpose of Rule 5A:18 to allow trial court opportunity to correct errors)