De Cordon v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep't of Family Servs.
| Decision Date | 09 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 1536-18-4 |
| Parties | NELY MARGARITA BONILLAS de CORDON v. FAIRFAX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED
Present: Chief Judge Decker, Judges Humphreys and O'Brien
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
(Kimberly A. Chadwick; Darlene R. Langley, Guardian ad litem for appellant; Langley & Langley, P.C., on brief), for appellant.
(Elizabeth D. Teare; May Shallal; John B. Jacob, Jr., Guardian ad litem for the minor children; Office of the County Attorney, on brief), for appellee.
Nely Margarita Bonillas de Cordon (mother) appeals the orders terminating her parental rights to her children and approving the goal of adoption. Mother argues that the circuit court erred by (1) consolidating the appeal of the termination of parental rights and permanency planning orders of her youngest child with her other three children after the circuit court already had heard a day of evidence in the matters regarding her older children; (2) terminating mother's parental rights and approving the foster care goal of adoption "when the mother was compliant with the foster care service plan and participating in all recommended services including specifically her mental health treatment;" (3) terminating her parental rights and approving the goal of adoption when the Fairfax County Department of Family Services (the Department) "failed to provide appropriate, available and reasonable services designed to remedy the conditions that led to the children's placement orcontinuation in foster care;" (4) terminating her parental rights and approving the goal of adoption when the Department "failed to present clear and convincing evidence regarding the mother's mental health, compliance with treatment, her relationship with the children, and her ability to care for her children during the one year time period immediately preceding trial;" (5) finding that it was in the children's best interests to terminate mother's parental rights and approve the goal of adoption when the Department "did not exhaust alternative, less drastic remedies, such as relative placement or the issuance of a protective order;" (6) terminating her parental rights and approving the goal of adoption for mother's youngest child because the Department "failed to present clear and convincing evidence to prove their case regarding this specific child;" and (7) "re-opening the evidence to admit [the Department's] documentary exhibits which it failed to introduce before resting its case in chief." Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the circuit court. See Rule 5A:27.
"On appeal from the termination of parental rights, this Court is required to review the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing in the circuit court." Yafi v. Stafford Dep't of Soc. Servs., 69 Va. App. 539, 550-51 (2018) (quoting Thach v. Arlington Cty. Dep't of Human Servs., 63 Va. App. 157, 168 (2014)).
Father and Nely Margarita Bonillas de Cordon (mother) are the biological parents to four children, C., F., A., and R., who are the subject of this appeal. The Department first becameinvolved with the family in December 2012, when it received a referral alleging mental abuse and neglect of C. and F.,2 who were six and four years old at the time. The Department received allegations that mother assaulted father and was arrested. Two days later, mother took C. and F. and fled to El Salvador. She and the children eventually returned to Virginia.
In February 2014, the Department received a referral alleging mental abuse and neglect of C. and F. Another domestic violence incident occurred between mother and father in front of the children. Neither parent was willing to cooperate with the Department nor participate in mental health treatment. The Department placed the children in foster care.
In 2015, A. was born, and the Department returned C. and F. to mother and father's home for a trial home visit from October 16, 2015 to November 5, 2015, when it received a referral alleging physical neglect of C. and F. Mother left the house overnight with the infant, A., and she did not bring weather-appropriate clothes, extra diapers, or supplies for A. She left C. and F., who were nine and seven years old at the time, home alone. Mother reported various stories to the Department as to where she had been when she left C. and F. The social worker noticed that mother did not respond appropriately to all of the questions and occasionally would "stare off in space." The Department placed all three children in foster care. Father expressed concern about mother and her mental health and told the Department that he was not worried about the children because they were in foster care. The Department tried to discuss placement options with father, but he refused to make any decisions without mother.
The Department offered individual therapy for mother, father, C., and F., and it also provided intensive family preservation services. C. and F. returned home for a trial home visit in July 2016, while A. returned home for a trial home visit in August 2016. The Fairfax CountyJuvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (the JDR court) returned the children to their parents' custody on September 30, 2016.
In November 2016, the Department received a referral for physical neglect of C., F., and A. Mother physically assaulted father in front of the children, and she was arrested. Mother was held without bond for thirty days, placed on probation for twelve months, and ordered to participate in mental health treatment and anger management services. The Department encouraged father to obtain a protective order, but father refused to file for a protective order or create a safety plan for the children. The Department offered ongoing services and a referral for father and the children to stay at a domestic violence shelter, but he refused all services. The children initially stayed with their former foster parents for a fourteen-day respite.
The Department explored relative placements, including father's sister, but she had a small home and several of her own children. Mother could not identify any relatives. Father told the Department that the only possible relative to take the children would be his sister.
The Department returned the children to father's care until mother's release from incarceration because he refused to keep mother away from the children. Father expressed that his primary goal was to take care of mother, not the children. The children were placed back in foster care in December 2016. On January 26, 2017, the JDR court returned the children's custody to their parents.
On July 31, 2017, the Department received a referral alleging physical neglect of C., F., and A. At the time, mother was pregnant with R. and stopped taking her medication for her mental illness. On at least two occasions, mother left the children home alone for extended periods of time.
Father contacted the Department and expressed concern that mother was no longer seeing her therapist. When the social workers interviewed C. and F., they reported that mother had leftthem alone more than once. C. complained that there was no food, other than cookies and ice cream, in the house. C. and F. described their mother as staring off and not responding to them when she was home. Neither C. nor F. wanted to be alone or go anywhere with mother for fear of what she might do. Both recalled the domestic violence incident that occurred in November 2016 and that father was bleeding a lot.
When the social workers interviewed mother, she admitted that she stopped taking her medications because she was pregnant. She was unable to provide any details to the social workers about her days with the children.
Father reported that mother was having an "emotional problem" because of the pregnancy. He stated that mother had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and that the doctor gave her the option of reducing her medication while she was pregnant. Mother, however, decided to stop taking the medication altogether, which father thought was a "bad decision." Father expressed concern about leaving the children home alone with mother while he went to work. Father acknowledged that mother left the children home alone for the day while he was at work. Father stated that there was no one with whom he could leave the children while he worked. The Department offered to assist with child care, but it would be a few days before it began. Father stated that he was unable to stay home and watch the children until child care would be available. Father also declined the Department's offer for rental assistance.
Father told the Department that he did not have any other family or friends who could watch the children. Father refused to allow the children to be placed in a foster care respite placement unless mother agreed. Eventually, mother and father agreed to a respite placement with the previous foster care family. The children cheered at the prospect of returning to the foster parents' home. When the social workers took the children to the foster care respite placement, A. was not wearing a diaper or underwear, and his shoes and socks were saturatedwith urine. C. and A. were wearing clothes that were too small. Upon arrival at the foster home, the children immediately went to bed and fell asleep.
The Department explored placement options for the children, including placing them with church members, but the Department could not locate any viable placements. Therefore, the Department decided to remove the children, instead of continuing with a respite placement, because mother had violated her probation and father was "not prioritizing the needs of the children." Mother was arrested for violating her probation and subsequently hospitalized at Western State Hospital.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial