Civis v. Fauquier Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
| Decision Date | 21 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 1560-17-4 |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | MICHAEL CIVIS v. FAUQUIER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES |
UNPUBLISHED
Present: Judges Petty, Malveaux and Senior Judge Annunziata
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAUQUIER COUNTY
Harold N. Ward, Jr., for appellant.
No brief or argument for appellee.1
Michael Civis (father) appeals the orders finding that his youngest child is at risk of being abused or neglected and approving the goal of adoption. Father argues that the circuit court erred by (1) admitting into evidence the Adjudication and Disposition Hearings Order from the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Maryland, filed December 16, 2014; (2) admitting into evidence the Memorandum of Decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Atlantic County, filed June 16, 2015; (3) admitting into evidence the Civil Action Order from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Atlantic County, filed June 15, 2015; (4) overruling father's objection to Dr. Edwin Carter's answer to whether Dr. Carter had an opinion as to father's ability to care for a young child because Dr. Carter's reply was not responsive; (5) directing counsel to limit his cross-examination of Dr. Carter to issues relating to father, as opposed to Saria Civis (mother); (6) overruling father's objection about a lack of foundation to Dr. Carter's response to mother's question about her diagnosis of dyslexia and her ability to collect disability benefits; (7) permitting the Fauquier County Department of Social Services (the Department) to present additional evidence after it rested its case; (8) characterizing the social worker's answer regarding the reason for the removal of the child, and father's restatement of her response, as "not being her answer;" (9) asking the Department if it were going to object to father's question to the social worker about the ability to schedule a quick doctor's appointment for the child's jaundice; (10) overruling father's renewed motion to strike; (11) finding that the child was at risk of abuse or neglect; (12) approving the foster care plan with the goal of adoption; and (13) approving the permanency plan with the goal of adoption.2 We find no error, and affirm the decision of the circuit court.
"On appeal, 'we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below, in this case the Department.'" Farrell v. Warren Cty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 59 Va. App. 375, 386, 719 S.E.2d 329, 334 (2012) (quoting Jenkins v. Winchester Dep't of Soc. Servs., 12 Va. App. 1178, 1180, 409 S.E.2d 16, 18 (1991)).
Father and mother are the biological parents of eight children, but only their youngest child is the subject of this appeal.3 The parents have a long history of involvement with Maryland Department of Social Services, Delaware Child Protective Services, and New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency. In 2011, Maryland Child Protective Services found that the children were abused or neglected. The family subsequently moved to Delaware and then New Jersey. In February 2012, the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency removed the parents' five oldest children from their custody due to inadequate shelter, food, clothing, medical care, and supervision, as well as concerns about the children's hygiene and the parents' mental health. The New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency tried to provide services to the parents, but the parents refused to cooperate. On June 15, 2015, the Superior Court of New Jersey in Atlantic County terminated mother's and father's parental rights to their five oldest children.
The parents returned to Maryland in April 2012 after New Jersey placed their five children in foster care. In 2012 and 2013, mother gave birth to two additional children while she and father lived in Maryland. The Maryland Department of Social Services became involved with the family and offered services to the parents, but to no avail. In November 2014, the Frederick County, Maryland Department of Social Services removed the two children from the parents' care, and in December 2014, the Circuit Court for Frederick County, Maryland found the parents' two children had been abused and neglected and that they were in need of assistance.
In 2015, after Maryland had placed the two children in foster care, the parents moved to Virginia and, in December 2015, mother gave birth to the child who is the subject of this appeal. There were no concerns about the child's health when he was born; however, he subsequently developed jaundice. The Department received a child protective services referral from the hospital based on their concerns about the parents' mental health and because the parents previously had had children removed from their care. A social worker met the parents and the child at the hotel where they were staying. A few days later, the Department contacted the Frederick County, Maryland Department of Social Services and learned of the removal of the parents' other seven children in Maryland and New Jersey. The prior terminations raised concerns that the child was at risk for abuse or neglect, and the Department removed the youngest child from the parents' custody on December 28, 2015. When the child came into the Department's care, he was "very jaundiced" and required immediate hospitalization for treatment.4
On January 20, 2016, the Fauquier County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (the JDR court) entered an order finding the child was at risk of being abused or neglected. On January 27, 2016, the Department filed a foster care plan with the goal of adoption because of the previous involuntary terminations of mother's and father's parental rights to five of their children in New Jersey and the foster care plans with goals of adoption for the two children in Maryland.
The Department referred father for a psychological evaluation. On March 23, 2016, Dr. Edwin Carter conducted tests, interviewed father, and prepared a report that explained his findings and conclusions. Dr. Carter described father as "experiencing multiple cognitive difficulties and general mood dysregulation, both of which are significantly impacting his ability to communicate with others and to function adequately." Dr. Carter noted that father has problems with short-term memory, working memory, verbal abstract reasoning, and executive functioning. Father told Dr. Carter that he "had an incident causing a serious TBI [traumatic brain injury] at some point in his life and . . . that he was comatose for a significant amount of time." Father also reported having been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, for which he took medication, a diagnosis that Dr. Carter confirmed. Dr. Carter concluded that "it was obvious" that father could not "independently parent children" and found it "hard to imagine a set of circumstances which would allow [father], even with significant support, to raise a child."
In 2016, Maryland terminated the parents' parental rights to their two children. On July 12, 2016, the JDR court entered a dispositional order noting the risk of abuse or neglect had been adjudicated and approving the foster care plan with the goal of adoption. Mother and father appealed the dispositional order to the circuit court.
On August 9, 2017, the parties appeared before the circuit court. Over father's objection, the circuit court accepted into evidence copies of the Maryland and New Jersey orders regarding the parents' other seven children. The Department presented expert testimony from Dr. Carter and his written reports, in which he opined that neither parent, whether individually or collectively, was capable of providing adequate care for a child. Dr. Carter stated that, considering father's limitations, he could not care for himself, much less a child. The Department also presented evidence that the child was "doing really well" in foster care and was "on track developmentally."
At the hearing, father testified that he and mother were no longer homeless, that they were renting a three-bedroom, single-family home in Maryland, and that he received social security disability and Medicare benefits. He asserted he was capable of raising his child and that he would do whatever was necessary to have the child returned to him. At the conclusion of the evidence, father made a motion to strike, which the circuit court denied.
After hearing the evidence and argument, the circuit court found the child was at risk of abuse or neglect and approved the goal of adoption. This appeal followed.5
Admissibility of out-of-state court orders
Father argues that the circuit court erred by admitting into evidence the Maryland and New Jersey orders because they did not meet the authentication requirements under Code § 8.01-389. We disagree.
"Generally, the admissibility of evidence 'is within the broad discretion of the trial court, and an [evidentiary] ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion.'" Surles v. Mayer, 48 Va. App. 146, 177, 628 S.E.2d 563, 578 (2006) (quoting Blain v. Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 10, 16, 371 S.E.2d 838, 842 (1988)) (brackets in original).
"The records of any judicial proceeding and any other official record of any court of another state . . . shall be received as prima facie evidence provided that such records are certified by the clerk of the court where preserved to be a true record." Code § 8.01-389(A1).
The use of the term "copy teste," "true copy," or "certified copy" or a substantially similar term on a certification affixed or annexed to a copy of an official record maintained by a clerk of court that bears the signature of the clerk or any deputy clerk, and that has the name of the court where such record is preserved on the document or on...
To continue reading
Request your trial