Glass v. City of Manassas Park Dep't of Soc. Servs.
| Decision Date | 02 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 0593-20-4 |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STACY L. GLASS v. CITY OF MANASSAS PARK DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES |
UNPUBLISHED
Present: Judges O'Brien, Malveaux and Senior Judge Frank
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
(Robert R. Gregory, on briefs), for appellant.
(Martin R. Crim; Stephanie Stinson, Guardian ad litem for the minor children; Vanderpool, Frostick & Nishanian, P.C.; Old Town Advocates, P.C., on brief), for appellee.
Stacy L. Glass (mother) appeals the orders terminating her parental rights to her three children. Mother argues that the circuit court erred in denying her motion for a continuance and her motion for a transcript. Mother next argues that the circuit erred in finding that the conditions which resulted in the neglect or abuse of the children were not substantially eliminated or corrected. Mother also argues that the circuit court erred in finding that the City of Manassas Park Department of Social Services (the Department) had provided sufficient services to assist her in overcoming the issues that led to the removal of her children. 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 Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 63 Va. App. 157, 168 (2014)).
Mother is the biological mother to the three children who are the subject of this appeal, E.J.S., A.M.B., and Z.T.B., ages seventeen, nine, and six, respectively.2 The Department had been involved with the family since 2015. The Department previously made a founded level three finding of physical neglect based on inadequate shelter, which was not appealed. In February 2017, mother requested assistance from the Department. The Department paid for mother's dental work, a bicycle, clothing and bedding, and a water bill. Mother was not receptive to the Department's other attempts to provide services including school transportation for the school-aged children, psychological evaluations for mother and E.J.S., housing, disability income, and employment.
On April 17, 2017 the Department received a report that mother's home was dirty, smelled of rotting food, had food and clothing all over, and had a broken front window with glass on the couch. The report also stated that mother had threatened and physically attacked Jeffrey Burke, the father of A.M.B. and Z.T.B. The Department conducted home visits on March 13 and April 17,2017, and found hanging appliance cords within reach of the children, a broken window with sharp edges, rotten food on the floors and other surfaces accessible to the children, and objects that presented a choking or poison hazard within reach of the children. The Department petitioned for emergency removal of all three children, and they were placed in a foster home.
On June 1, 2017, the Prince William County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (the JDR court) found that the children were abused or neglected. After a dispositional hearing, the JDR court approved initial foster care plans with the goal of returning all three children to mother's care. The Department required mother to take a parenting class, complete a psychological evaluation, complete a parental capacity evaluation, cooperate with all recommendations, and provide potential placement resources for the children. By October 2017, mother had completed her parenting class and psychological evaluation. Mother continued to reside in her home after the lease had terminated; her eviction was pending. Mother had no income or plan for alternative housing.
In January 2018, mother informed the Department that she intended to move to Florida to be near family and had a job and housing lined up. Mother informed the Department of at least two changes of address once in Florida. After mother moved to Florida, the Department filed petitions to terminate her rights to all three children in June 2018. The Department sought approval of mother's housing in Florida through the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC), but Florida denied the request for approval of her home in August 2018. At mother's request, the JDR court directed the Department to resubmit two more ICPC studies for approval of mother's home and both were ultimately denied in April 2019 and October 2019. Mother visited the children while she still lived in Virginia and maintained telephone contact with them after she moved to Florida.
Mother obtained a psychological evaluation as required by the Department. Dr. Edwin N. Carter performed the evaluation and prepared a report. Dr. Carter found that mother's cognition was highly suspect and inconsistent. Dr. Carter reported that mother is likely to unwittingly engage in negligent actions like failure to maintain a clean and healthy environment, follow through with doctor's instructions, and balance the needs of the children appropriately. Mother needed vocational training to take care of herself financially and required an extensive external structure that could likely never be eliminated. Dr. Carter found that mother appeared unable to manage the environment and general circumstances of children without support or direction. Dr. Carter believed that mother could participate in the parenting of her children only if they were in the custody of others.
Although mother participated in the psychological evaluation, she did not satisfy many other requirements of the foster care plan. Mother did not enlist the help of other competent individuals to help with the demands of raising the children, did not obtain safe and stable housing for the children, and did not obtain stable employment sufficient to pay for the family's household expenses.
On January 31, 2019, the JDR court orally approved a change of goal to adoption and indicated it would enter the termination of parental rights orders. On February 6, 2019, the JDR court sua sponte reconsidered its ruling. On September 26, 2019, the JDR court entered the orders approving the foster care goal of adoption and terminating the parental rights of mother for all three children. Mother appealed the JDR court's rulings to the circuit court.
On March 16, 2020, the parties appeared before the circuit court. Mother had not communicated with her counsel for three months, so her counsel moved for a continuance. The circuit court denied the motion. A social worker testified that mother did not follow up on any of the services before and after the children's removal unless her father was involved. The Departmentpresented evidence that the children had been removed on April 17, 2017 and had been thriving in their foster home since the removal. The children were medically healthy, had a healthy relationship with each other and their foster parents, were learning academically and socially, and participated in therapy.
Mother testified that she wished to be reunited with her children. Mother described her current living situation near relatives and testified that she worked twenty-eight to forty hours per week. Mother admitted to a prior conviction for a crime of moral turpitude. Mother also acknowledged that she did not have a budget, that she had not pursued job training or obtained her GED, and had not pursued a degree in nursing as she had previously promised. Mother could not explain why she had not visited the children in Virginia except when she came to Virginia for court appearances.
After hearing the evidence and argument, the circuit court found that mother "suffers from a mental deficiency of such severity that there's no reasonable expectation that she'll be able to undertake responsibility for the care needed for the children in accordance with their age and level of development." The circuit court also found that "the Department has provided every conceivable support mechanism to [mother], and [mother] without good cause has not responded to or followed through with the appropriate available and reasonable rehabilitative efforts that have been offered to her." The circuit court terminated mother's parental rights to the children under Code § 16.1-283(B) and (C)(2) and approved the foster care goal of adoption. This appeal followed.
"On review, '[a] trial court is presumed to have thoroughly weighed all the evidence, considered the statutory requirements, and made its determination based on the child's best interests.'" Castillo v. Loudoun Cnty. Dep't of Fam. Servs., 68 Va. App. 547, 558 (2018) (quoting Logan v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128 (1991)). "Where, ashere, the court hears the evidence ore tenus, its finding is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." Fauquier Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Ridgeway, 59 Va. App. 185, 190 (2011) (quoting Martin v. Pittsylvania Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20 (1986)).
Mother argues that the circuit court erred in denying her motion for a continuance, erred in denying her motion for a transcript at no cost to her, and erred in finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the termination of her parental rights. Mother asserts that the evidence showed that the conditions that resulted in the neglect or abuse were substantially eliminated or corrected, in order to allow the children to safely return to her care. Mother also asserts that the evidence was insufficient to show that the Department had provided sufficient services to assist her in overcoming the problems in her case.
Mother did not object to the denial of either motion and did not object to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial