Houston v. City of Newport News Dep't of Human Servs.
| Decision Date | 11 July 2017 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 1532-16-1 |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | MARTIN HOUSTON, SR. v. CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES |
UNPUBLISHED
Present: Judges Beales, Chafin and Malveaux
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS
Udoka Obi Ndukwe for appellant.
Patrick C. Murphrey, Assistant City Attorney; Warren F. Keeling, Guardian ad litem for the minor children, for appellee.
On September 6, 2016, the Circuit Court of the City of Newport News ("circuit court") entered a series of orders pertaining to the four children of Martin Houston, Sr. The circuit court approved permanency and foster care plans recommending adoption for each of the children, and terminated Houston's residual parental rights. Houston appeals from these decisions. Specifically, he contends that the circuit court erred by: 1) failing to dismiss the petitions filed on behalf of the Newport News Department of Human Services ("DHS") that were signed by non-attorney social workers, 2) denying his motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum regarding his mental health records, and 3) terminating his parental rights in the absence of clear andconvincing evidence establishing that the criteria of Code § 16.1-283 had been satisfied.1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the circuit court's decisions.
"When reviewing a [circuit] court's decision on appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, granting it the benefit of any reasonable inferences." Boatright v. Wise Cty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 64 Va. App. 71, 76, 764 S.E.2d 724, 727 (2014) (quoting Congdon v. Congdon, 40 Va. App. 255, 258, 578 S.E.2d 833, 835 (2003)). So viewed, the evidence is as follows.
Houston is the biological father of four children: M.H.1 (born December 2, 2003), M.H.2 (born October 4, 2004), M.H.3 (born December 15, 2006), and M.H.4 (born July 7, 2009). On October 24, 2013, DHS received a report alleging that Houston had injured M.H.3 by hitting him in the face. DHS had previously received other reports alleging that Houston had physically abused his children. When social workers from DHS went to Houston's residence to investigate the incident, they observed visible injuries on M.H.3's face. The right side of his face, his right eye, and his forehead were red. M.H.3 had also been bleeding.2 Eventually, M.H.1 and M.H.2 told the social workers that Houston caused the injuries by striking M.H.3 across the face. All four children were placed in foster care following this incident.
While the children were in foster care, they told social workers about other instances of physical abuse by Houston and their mother, Crystal Houston.3 M.H.1 told social workers that "her parents would hit them, smack them in the face, kick them, throw things at them, put hot sauce and sap in their mouths, . . . grab them by the neck, . . . pull them by their ears and hit them with belts and shoes." She also said that her mother threw a glass bottle at M.H.3's head on one occasion. M.H.1 told social workers that "she was afraid that if she went back home to her parents, they would kill her and her siblings."
Despite the allegations of physical abuse from the children, Houston and his wife denied any form of wrongdoing. Houston denied that he ever hit or physically abused the children, and he explained that M.H.3 sustained the facial injuries observed by the DHS social workers when he fell on bleachers at a football game. Both parents, however, admitted that they used corporal punishment to discipline the children, and Crystal Houston admitted that she "popped" M.H.3 on the mouth on a daily basis.
After obtaining temporary custody of the children, DHS devised a plan to remedy the conditions that led to the placement of the children in foster care and return them to the custody of their parents. The initial foster care plans filed by DHS required Houston to meet several conditions in order to reach this goal.4 Notably, the foster care plans required Houston to demonstrate that he could "provide an environment for [his] children that [was] safe and free from abuse [and] neglect," "reduce risk factors for abusing children," maintain a "lifestyle free of corporal punishment," and take parenting and anger management classes. The plans alsorequired Houston to participate in individual and structural family therapy, and sign consent forms allowing DHS to receive information from his therapists to measure his progress. Additionally, Houston was required to maintain regular contact with his children and DHS.
The initial foster care plans also required Houston to participate in a parenting capacity evaluation and comply with its recommendations. Jennifer Gildea, a licensed clinical psychologist, conducted the parenting capacity evaluation on March 10, 2014. In the evaluation, Gildea noted that Houston "adamantly denied any wrongdoing." She also noted that Houston felt that he was being treated unfairly by DHS. While Houston admitted using corporal discipline with his children, he denied that any use of corporal discipline injured them.
Gildea explained that Houston's failure to accept responsibility for M.H.3's injuries increased his risk for "ongoing problematic parenting and interpersonal interactions at home." Gildea concluded that:
Houston's risk for engaging in child physical abuse in the future is expected to remain in the moderate to high range without continued insight-building educational, supportive and therapeutic interventions, especially since he has not yet come to accept any level of accountability for events leading up to the children's removal from his care.
Accordingly, Gildea recommended ongoing individual and structural family therapy services to help Houston reduce the risks of future physical abuse of the children. Gildea also recommended marital therapy sessions, and encouraged Houston and his wife to "explore events leading up to the removal of the children from their care and the decisions, actions and responses they exhibited that may have contributed to this outcome." Additionally, Gildea recommended ongoing parenting classes and "one-on-one parenting coaching."
Initially, Houston actively addressed the requirements of the foster care plans and the parental capacity evaluation. He completed an anger management program and numerous parenting classes. He participated regularly in structural family therapy from March 2014 toSeptember 2014. He also engaged in supervised visitation with his children during most of this time period.5
Houston attended individual therapy sessions with a therapist referred to him by DHS from November 2013 through May 2014. Houston then stopped attending individual therapy for several months. Although Houston resumed individual therapy and attended therapy sessions in November and December 2014, he eventually stopped attending individual therapy sessions with the therapist referred by DHS. After December 2014, Houston sought individual therapy with other therapists and counseling from individuals at his church. Houston, however, refused to sign a consent form allowing DHS to access his therapy records. Therefore, DHS could not monitor Houston's therapeutic progress after December 2014.
From September 2014 to December 2014, Houston "took a break" from most of the services offered by DHS. Houston stopped participating in structural family therapy sessions and communicating with his structural family therapist. His supervised visitation with the children was also suspended due to a series of sexual abuse allegations involving them.6 During this time period, DHS employees attempted to contact Houston and his wife through telephone calls, letters, and unannounced visits to their home and church.7 Although DHS informed Houston through letters and voicemail messages that services were still available to him, he failed to respond to DHS or attend any meetings involving his children.
In the meantime, DHS located James and Melissa Lang, the maternal uncle and aunt of Houston's children. The Langs agreed to be relative placements for the children. On November 3, 2014, M.H.1 and M.H.4 were placed with the Langs. DHS planned to place M.H.2 and M.H.3 with the Langs as well after M.H.1 and M.H.4 and the Langs had time to adjust to their new living arrangements.
In December 2014, DHS held a team meeting regarding Houston's children. Neither Houston nor his wife attended this meeting. At the meeting, the team of individuals involved in this case determined that Houston and his wife had failed to remedy the conditions that led to the children's placement in foster care. Therefore, DHS recommended that the goal of the children's foster care plans should be changed to adoption. DHS also filed petitions to terminate Houston's residual parental rights regarding the children.
Houston and his wife resumed services with DHS shortly after this meeting. Houston resumed structural family therapy in February 2015, and participated until October 2015. He also participated in individual therapy until May 2016, but records suggested that this therapy primarily consisted of marriage counseling. Houston's contact with his children was limited during this time period due to the ongoing investigation of the sexual abuse allegations.
The Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court of the City of Newport News ("JDR court") approved DHS's request to change the goal of the children's foster care plans to adoption on January 13, 2015. The JDR court, however, maintained the concurrent goal of relative placement in the children's foster care plans. At some point after January 13, 2015, the Langs expressed their desire to adopt all of Houston's children. DHS and the Langs both believed that adoption would provide a more stable environment for the children. The JDR court changed the goal of the children's foster care plans to adoption without relative...
To continue reading
Request your trial