Ingram v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep't of Family Servs.

Decision Date10 May 2022
Docket Number1289-20-4
PartiesORAYL DALE VONTE INGRAM v. FAIRFAX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES
CourtVirginia Court of Appeals

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Brett A. Kassabian, Judge

Donna L. Biderman for appellant.

Deborah C. Laird, Assistant County Attorney (Kathleen Rust Bell, Guardian ad litem for the minor children, on brief) for appellee.

Present: Chief Judge Decker, Judges Ortiz and Causey Argued at Fairfax, Virginia

MEMORANDUM OPINION [*]
DORIS HENDERSON CAUSEY JUDGE

Orayl Dale Vonte Ingram ("father") appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two minor children M.I. and L.I. ("children").[1] Father contends that the circuit court committed reversible error in finding, pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), that father, without good cause, failed to substantially remedy the conditions that led to the placement of the children in foster care. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the circuit court's decision.

I. Background[2]

The children who are the subjects of this appeal are M.I. and L.I. Lauren Jones ("mother") is the mother of four daughters: S.J., E.W., M.I., and L.I. In May 2019, around the time that M.I. and L.I. entered foster care, the four daughters were eight years old, seven years old, three years old, and one year old, respectively. Father is the biological father of M.I. and L.I.

In November 2017, father and mother were charged in federal court for interstate transportation during prostitution, use of interstate facilities involving prostitution offenses, and aiding and abetting prostitution. In January 2019, father pled guilty to interstate transportation for prostitution and aiding and abetting prostitution. Both parents were sentenced collectively to forty-five months of incarceration and decided to split the time served to allow one parent to be home with the children. Father began serving a thirty-month prison sentence in March 2019.

Previously, in November 2016 and March 2018, the State of Maryland filed child neglect reports regarding M.I. One report alleged that mother and father brought M.I., then one year old, to a hotel where mother was prostituting. Another report alleged that mother and father were also taking M.I., while she was two years old, with them to "dates" and/or being with M.I. in a hotel room nearby while they engaged in prostitution. Additionally, when mother was arrested during an undercover prostitution operation in a hotel room, father and the children were down at the hotel pool.

In April 2019, the Jones-Ingram family was referred to Child Protective Services ("CPS") in Annandale due to allegations of physical neglect and inadequate supervision-it was reported that S.J., then eight years old, was watching one-year-old L.I. at night so that mother could work.[3] At the time, M.I. and L.I. lived at their maternal grandfather's home in Falls Church, Virginia, with their maternal grandfather, maternal uncle, mother, and two older sisters; father was incarcerated at a federal facility in Pennsylvania. The family entered into a safety plan. Additionally, shortly after, based on allegations that mother physically abused S.J. and E.W., the Jones-Ingram family was referred to CPS again. After investigating these allegations, the Fairfax County Department of Family Services ("DFS") sought removal of all four children because the first neglect allegation in Virginia was still being investigated and "the family has extensive history in Maryland that included foster care twice and six substantiated findings of neglect for the children." The Fairfax County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court ("JDR court") entered emergency removal orders regarding the children on May 14, 2019. In June of 2019, DFS identified Robin Ingram ("paternal grandmother")[4] as a possible relative placement option.

Elizabeth Carter ("Ms. Carter"), a foster care specialist with DFS, was the foster care worker assigned to the Jones-Ingram family starting in May 2019. By July 10, 2019, Ms. Carter had no contact with father. To contact father, Ms. Carter was required to coordinate with father's case manager at the prison.[5] Ms. Carter left many voicemails as well as emails for his case manager, but they went unanswered. By the foster care review hearing on October 30, 2019, father had never contacted Ms. Carter, "[i]t was always [Ms. Carter] contacting [father]."

In the foster care plan entered at disposition, Ms. Carter included several services for father to complete: a referral for a psychological evaluation, a referral for a parent capacity assessment-one for each child, a parenting class, supervised visitation, and case consultation. Father was to file any treatment recommendations from those referrals and reports. Ms. Carter explained that she included these services for father "in case he was released prior to his good behavior date of March of 2021" and that she "wanted to encourage him to take advantage of these services that were offered in his facility" so he could make progress before his potential early release. She explained that "[t]hese are assessments that we ask all parents to participate in before we can consider them as [a] placement option for the children."

Ms. Carter had multiple contacts with father while he was in prison in Pennsylvania: (1) a phone call on October 10, 2019; (2) a phone call on January 22, 2020; (3) an in-person meeting on February 7, 2020; (4) a phone call on March 27, 2020[6]; and (5) a phone call on August 11, 2020. For the in-person meeting on February 7, 2020, Ms. Carter traveled for four hours from Fairfax to the federal prison in Loretto, Pennsylvania, to meet with father.

Over the course of these contacts, Ms. Carter explained to father DFS's assessment of his children's situation and what would be required of him. She explained that for father to be considered a placement option, she would need him to participate in the relevant classes offered at the facility. She explained that she had tried to arrange for outside providers to come to the facility to provide services-such as the psychological evaluation, the parent capacity assessment, and parenting classes-and that she was informed by the case manager that outside providers were not permitted because the facility offered those services. Father confirmed that parenting classes were offered at the facility, but that there was a long waitlist for the class. Ms. Carter encouraged father to sign up for the class as soon as possible and to also put his name on the waitlist. When Ms. Carter followed up, father said he forgot to put his name on the waitlist, did not do so until December 2019, and, due to the long waitlist, could not take the class until April 2020. The class was later canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Regarding the psychological evaluation, father told Ms. Carter that he had previously completed a psychological evaluation and did not want to complete another. Consequently, Ms. Carter requested that father sign a release so she could obtain a copy of the evaluation, but father never did so. Ms. Carter also asked father to complete an Alcohol and Drug Services ("ADS") evaluation, but father did not do so, commenting that he does not drink or do drugs. DFS required supervised visitation with the home-based counselor to ensure that father's communication and parenting capacity was appropriate for the girls. Additionally, father needed to complete a sexual risk assessment because, at the time, there was an open CPS investigation based on an allegation that father sexually abused his stepdaughter, S.J.

During these meetings, father showed little interest in reviewing the court-entered permanency plans regarding his children. He denied ever neglecting his children and refused to acknowledge that bringing his children along with him and mother while they conducted criminal activities was neglectful behavior. Father "kept stating that he was the mastermind" behind the prostitution ring, and, when asked, stated that he would do the whole thing all over again. Father admitted to having sex with a thirteen-year-old girl when he was seventeen, and Ms. Carter noted that father did not seem to think such action was problematic.

Regarding his plans for the care of the children, father communicated that he thought mother was a good parent and wanted his children to be returned to her custody. If they could not be returned to her custody, however, he wanted them to remain in foster care until he was released from prison and could improve himself as a placement option. Father informed Ms. Carter that his release date was September 30, 2020. The only residential option for father upon release was a halfway house, which did not allow children. To support the children financially, father stated his plan was to file a claim to obtain money owed to him by the IRS and potentially become a property manager, like he had done prior to being incarcerated, or work at the new Amazon facility. Father noted that while incarcerated, he had been studying to be a physical trainer so he could take the test for certification upon his release. Regarding childcare, father stated that he hoped his father-in-law would change his mind about letting father live with him. Otherwise, father was not able to come up with a solution for childcare but thought that maybe he could get a job that allowed him to work from home so he could supervise the children.

On March 6, 2020, the JDR court terminated father's parental rights to M.I. and L.I. About six months later, the circuit court heard father's appeal of that order. By the time of the appeal, the children had been in foster care for seventeen months. Father testified that he had phone contact with the children starting in April 2020...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT