Timothy Wayne Wooddell, Jr. v. Harrisonburg-Rockingham Social Services District
0316163
| Va. Ct. App. | Oct 11, 2016Background
- Parents (Timothy and Amanda Wooddell) had four children removed Dec. 16, 2014 for abuse/neglect based on inadequate housing, supervision, parental substance abuse, and domestic violence; the appeal concerns two daughters, A.W. (7) and C.W. (1).
- HRSSD had prior concerns (2013) about infant C.W. being substance-exposed; parents failed to engage meaningfully in recommended services.
- December 2014 home visits revealed a trashed house, drug paraphernalia, open substance use, injuries to a child, and parental admissions of methamphetamine and excessive prescription drug use; children were removed.
- Both parents had substance-dependence diagnoses, inconsistent compliance with treatment and drug testing, and continuing positive tests; father had alcohol-related arrests and domestic violence incidents.
- Children were placed in foster/relative homes; foster parent for the two girls is willing to adopt and provides stable care; HRSSD had concerns about maternal grandparents as relative placement due to health/ability issues.
- The circuit court terminated both parents’ rights under Va. Code § 16.1-283(C)(2); parents appealed soley challenging the best-interest/substantial-remedy findings.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | HRSSD/Guardian's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under §16.1-283(C)(2) was in children’s best interests | Parents argued they made progress and could remedy conditions | HRSSD argued parents failed to substantially remedy substance abuse, domestic violence, and supervision concerns within 12 months | Court affirmed termination — parents did not substantially remedy conditions and termination served children’s best interests |
| Whether court erred by separating siblings into different homes | Parents contended separation was not in children’s best interests | HRSSD argued sibling separation consideration is not paramount and placements better met each child’s needs | Court held sibling separation was permissible given behavioral needs and stability of placements |
| Whether HRSSD failed to appropriately consider relative placement (maternal grandparents) | Parents argued the Osbornes were suitable relatives and should have custody consideration | HRSSD pointed to Osbornes’ health/age, communication and caregiving concerns, and Mr. Osborne’s lack of awareness of the home conditions | Court upheld finding that the Osbornes were unsuitable, so termination was not improper for failing to place with them |
| Whether circuit court’s factual findings were unsupported | Parents argued the court’s findings on substance abuse, domestic violence, and supervision were erroneous | HRSSD relied on trial record (drug tests, arrests, program noncompliance, visitation concerns) and deference to ore tenus findings | Court held ore tenus findings entitled to great weight and were supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Logan v. Fairfax Cty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 409 S.E.2d 460 (1991) (trial-court best-interest analysis and evidentiary view favoring prevailing party)
- Martin v. Pittsylvania Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 348 S.E.2d 13 (1986) (deference to ore tenus findings)
- Hughes v. Gentry, 18 Va. App. 318, 443 S.E.2d 448 (1994) (sibling separation consideration is not paramount)
- Barkey v. Commonwealth, Alexandria Dep’t of Human Servs., 2 Va. App. 662, 347 S.E.2d 188 (1986) (list of factors court must consider in best-interest analysis)
- Kaywood v. Halifax Cty. Dep’t of Social Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 394 S.E.2d 492 (1990) (children should not wait indefinitely for parents to demonstrate readiness)