Rocka v. Roanoke County Dept. of Public Welfare
| Decision Date | 20 January 1975 |
| Parties | Josie Ester ROCKA, also known as Nikki Chillson v. ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Burton L. Albert, Roanoke, for plaintiff in error.
John N. Lampros, Commonwealth's Atty., for Roanoke County, for defendant in error.
Before I'ANSON, C.J., and CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN, POFF and COMPTON, JJ.
On March 1, 1972, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Roanoke County (the juvenile court), upon petitions filed December 30, 1971, by the Roanoke County Board of Public Welfare (the Board), entered orders granting the Board temporary custody of two infant children, then aged six and four years, of Raymond George Chillson, Sr., (the father) and Josie Ester Rocka, also known as Nikki Chillson (the mother). On October 4, 1972, the juvenile court granted the Board's petitions for permanent custody with the right to place for adoption. On the mother's appeal, the circuit court entered orders on November 17, 1972, remanding the cases on the ground that the father had not been notified of the custody hearing. Further proceedings were delayed for nearly a year pending the Board's efforts to acquire background information concerning the fitness of the father. On October 11, 1973, rejecting the claims of both the father and the mother, the juvenile court granted permanent custody to the Board. On November 15, 1973, upon a hearing De novo, the circuit court found that granting permanent custody to the Board 'would be to the benefit and welfare of said children' and on that finding entered a final order. We granted the mother a writ of error; the father did not seek a writ.
The mother contends that the final order 'is contrary to the law and evidence' and that the evidence is insufficient to show that she 'is either unfit or unable to care for the children.'
The evidence consists solely of certain departmental records and the testimony of the mother and that of a caseworker. About 1965, the mother and father began living together as man and wife in Florida. 1 At that time, the mother was approximately 19 years old and the father was 16 years her senior. Three children were born of their union. The mother was described by her Florida relatives as 'a good natured kid, decent, easily influenced, irresponsible and immature'. The father, a migrant farm worker, physically abused the mother and their three children. In December, 1971, fearing for their safety, the mother fled from her Florida home and took their children in the family pickup truck to her brother's home near Farmville, Virginia. Expelled from the house by her brother's wife, the mother took the children to Roanoke. Having no place to stay and only $33.00 in cash, she sought and received temporary shelter and other assistance from a local church. On December 30, 1971, she asked the Board to take the children and place them in foster care until she could find work and a place to live.
Soon thereafter, she found work for short periods of time in a restaurant and in an aluminum products company in Roanoke. She rented a room at a motel and bought her own furniture to replace what was there. The caseworker testified that the mother 'felt that it would be easier for her to provide a home for two of the children than it would be for three' and, pursuant to the Board's recommendation, granted formal consent to place the youngest child for adoption. That adoption, fully consummated, is not in issue here.
Early in 1972, the mother went to Richmond in search of employment. Some time later, she returned to Roanoke and, for a period of approximately two months, worked as a driver for a taxicab company. In July, 1972, she went to North Carolina to work in the tobacco fields. In October, 1972, learning that the Juvenile Court had entered permanent custody orders, she returned to Roanoke and filed an appeal. Thereafter, and during the year when the Board was assembling information concerning the fitness of the father, the record shows nothing about the mother's employment history except that she worked for a time at a concrete plant in Atlanta, Georgia. At the time of the De novo hearing, she was working again for the taxicab company in Roanoke. Because the mother and children were not living in the same household, they were ineligible for benefits under the Aid to Dependent Children program. During the entire period, she made regular rental payments on the motel room. On the day before the hearing, she signed a one-year lease on a two-bedroom apartment.
Before the juvenile court entered the first permanent custody orders, the mother visited her children four times. She asked to see them more often but was told that 'the children had to get adjusted to their new situation.' Thereafter, the caseworker testified that in response to requests relayed through the mother's attorney 'we denied the visits upon the basis that the children were permanently committed to the Welfare Department.' The caseworker further testified that 'I don't doubt her sincerity in wanting the children, or that she loves the children in her way, but what I do doubt is her capacity to provide a stable home for the children' and 'we felt that it would be in the best interest of the children to place them for adoption.'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Napier v. Wise Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
...dissent specifically states "a fit parent with a suitable home has a right to the custody of his child superior to the rights of others." Id. at 518. dissent partially quotes the Supreme Court of Virginia in Harris v. Lynchburg Div. of Soc. Servs., 223 Va. 235, 240-41 (1982): "The General A......
-
Weaver v. Roanoke Dept. of Human Resources, s. 791059
...be separated permanently from its parent, parents or guardian . . . ." Acts 1960, c. 331, at 393. In Rocka v. Roanoke Co. Dep't of Welfare, 215 Va. 515, 518, 211 S.E.2d 76, 78 (1975), and Berrien v. Greene County, 216 Va. 241, 244, 217 S.E.2d 854, 856 (1975), we held, however, that parental......
-
McEntire v. Redfearn, 751350
...guardian Ad litem, who appears here on behalf of the father, relies, as did the trial judge, on Rocka v. Roanoke County Department of Public Welfare, 215 Va. 515, 211 S.E.2d 76 (1975), and Hammack v. Wise, --- W.Va. ---, 211 S.E.2d 118 (1975), and contends the trial court properly placed th......
-
Elder v. Evans
...child custody contests between parents is inapposite to contests between parent and non-parent." Rocka v. Roanoke County Dep't of Public Welfare, 215 Va. 515, 518, 211 S.E.2d 76, 78 (1975). Moreover, those deficiencies that can be attributed to the father in this case primarily existed when......