Tammy Anne Reinbold v. City of Newport News Department of Human Services
0093211
| Va. Ct. App. | Sep 21, 2021Background
- Four children were placed in foster care on May 30, 2017 due to appellant Tammy Reinbold’s unstable housing and her estrangement/refusal to be around the two older children because of the relationship between those children and Reinbold’s partner.
- The Department filed termination petitions April 11, 2018; the JDR court terminated Reinbold’s residual parental rights (Jan. 29, 2019) and Reinbold appealed; a de novo hearing was held in circuit court on August 25, 2020.
- Expert testimony (Dr. Smith) identified bipolar disorder and an IQ of 68 for Reinbold, recommended psychiatric/medication management and parenting skills training; Dr. Smith thought parenting possible only with substantial skill-building.
- Department caseworkers testified Reinbold failed to secure stable, adequate housing or sustained employment, did not reliably use offered employment and housing services, and had not repaired her relationship with the two older children; supervised visits never progressed to unsupervised visits.
- The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence under Va. Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), that Reinbold had not substantially remedied the conditions that led to foster care and that termination was in the children’s best interests; the court entered written termination orders (Jan. 29, 2021).
- Reinbold appealed, arguing insufficiency of the evidence to show best interests and inability/unwillingness to remedy; she also argued on appeal (but not below) that termination as to G.S. raised jurisdictional doubts because he turned 18 before the circuit hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reinbold) | Defendant's Argument (Department) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported termination under Code §16.1-283(C)(2) (best interests + unwilling/unable to substantially remedy within 12 months) | Evidence insufficient to show termination was in children’s best interests or that Reinbold could not substantially remedy conditions | Evidence showed persistent unstable housing, unemployment, failure to use offered services, unremedied estrangement with older children, and mental-health/cognitive limitations—warranting termination | Court held trial court’s factual findings were supported and not plainly wrong; termination affirmed |
| Whether circuit court lacked jurisdiction to terminate Reinbold’s rights as to G.S., who was 18 at circuit hearing | Termination as to G.S. was doubtful because G.S. was no longer a “child” at the time of the circuit hearing | Jurisdictional challenge was not raised in the trial court and thus waived for appeal; trial court had potential jurisdiction | Court declined to consider the unpreserved jurisdictional argument under Rule 5A:18 and refused to disturb termination orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Yafi v. Stafford Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 69 Va. App. 539 (2018) (view evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing agency)
- Castillo v. Loudoun Cnty. Dep’t of Fam. Servs., 68 Va. App. 547 (2018) (trial court presumed to weigh evidence and act in children’s best interests)
- Fauquier Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Ridgeway, 59 Va. App. 185 (2011) (ore tenus findings entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed unless plainly wrong)
- Martin v. Pittsylvania Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15 (1986) (standard on appellate review of trial-court factfinding)
- Toms v. Hanover Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 257 (2005) (subsection C termination focuses on parent’s failure to make reasonable changes)
- Tackett v. Arlington Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 62 Va. App. 296 (2013) (children should not wait indefinitely for parental stability; delay can harm best interests)
- Richmond Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. L.P., 35 Va. App. 573 (2001) (parental mental deficiencies can prolong instability and affect best interests)
- Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203 (2008) (preservation rules require raising certain jurisdictional defects below)
- Morrison v. Bestler, 239 Va. 166 (1990) (distinguishes potential jurisdiction from active jurisdiction; preservation requirements)