Simone Brown v. Petersburg Department of Social Services
0722162
| Va. Ct. App. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- Child E. born Nov. 2013; Petersburg DSS (PDSS) became involved soon after and filed an abuse/neglect petition Sept. 19, 2014.
- JDR court entered preliminary removal Nov. 5, 2014; initial foster-care plan goal was return home or relative placement.
- PDSS later sought and the JDR court approved changing the goal to adoption on Oct. 7, 2015; JDR court terminated mother's parental rights Dec. 2, 2015.
- Mother appealed to the Circuit Court of the City of Petersburg; on Mar. 31, 2016 the circuit court approved the change to adoption and terminated mother’s residual parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(B) and (C).
- On appeal to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, mother argued the abuse/neglect had been substantially corrected and she complied with services; she also raised alleged failures to consider relative placement statutes but did not adequately brief some statutory claims.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding mother failed to challenge the sufficiency of the Circuit Court’s finding under § 16.1-283(C)(2), making any argument about § 16.1-283(B) moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under Code § 16.1-283(B) was unsupported because mother corrected conditions and complied with services | Mother: abuse/neglect substantially corrected; she participated in services | PDSS: termination appropriate; alternative statutory grounds supported termination | Court: Did not reach § 16.1-283(B) claim because mother failed to challenge § 16.1-283(C)(2); termination stands based on § 16.1-283(C)(2) |
| Whether circuit court erred in changing foster-care goal to adoption by failing to consider relative placement statutes | Mother: court failed to properly consider Code §§ 16.1-283(A), 16.1-283(A1), and 16.1-282.1(C) | PDSS: court satisfied statutory requirements; some cited code sections inapplicable | Court: mother’s arguments on these statutory points were inadequately briefed or inapplicable; not considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawthorne v. Smyth Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 33 Va. App. 130 (discusses requirement to consider relative placement)
- Toms v. Hanover Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 257 (standard of review and child’s best interests governs termination decisions)
- Fields v. Dinwiddie Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1 (best-interests consideration in termination proceedings)
- Logan v. Fairfax Cty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123 (deference to trial court’s ore tenus factfinding)
- Peple v. Peple, 5 Va. App. 414 (same — appellate deference to trial factfinding)
- City of Newport News Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Winslow, 40 Va. App. 556 (distinct statutory bases for termination under § 16.1-283)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113 (failure to address alternative holdings waives appellate challenge)
- Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53 (issues unsupported by argument or authority are not considered on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 793 S.E.2d 805 (appellate courts need not address alternate holdings when an independently dispositive ruling exists)