Saeed v. City of Fredericksburg Dep't of Soc. Servs.
| Decision Date | 11 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 1292-20-2 |
| Parties | ADNAN SAEED v. CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED
Present: Judges Petty, Athey and Senior Judge Clements
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG
(Erin K. Dooley, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief.
(Robin N. Krueger; Patricia Joshi, Guardian ad litem for the minor children, on brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on brief.
Adnan Saeed (father) appeals the circuit court's orders finding that his three youngest children were abused or neglected and terminating his parental rights to those children. Father argues that the circuit court erred in finding that termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of the children. Father also contends that the circuit court erred in finding that the City of Fredericksburg Department of Social Services made "'reasonable and appropriate efforts' to help the father remedy the conditions which led to the placement under Virginia Code section 16.1-283(C)." Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that the circuit court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the circuit court.
"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)).
Father and Salwa Jaffar (mother) are the biological parents to five children; the parents' youngest two daughters and their youngest son are the subject of this appeal.2 In 2002, father and mother, along with their oldest two children, moved from Iraq to the United States. Father's and mother's youngest three children were born in the United States.
In 2006, after receiving reports of physical neglect and physical abuse, the Fairfax County Child Protective Services "began to have significant contact" with the family and offered them "extensive services."3 Father, however, did not participate in much of the services. The Fairfax County Department of Family Services remained involved with the family until 2013.
In March 2018, the family was living in Warren County, and the school counselor at the middle school contacted the parents because their youngest daughter, who was in eighth grade, was harming herself and had suicidal ideations. The school counselor recommended counselingfor their daughter. Three weeks later, the school counselor discovered that the child was continuing to self-harm and was telling her friends that she wanted to kill herself. The school counselor followed up with the parents and learned that they "were still looking" for a therapist for their daughter.
In June 2018, the youngest daughter again expressed suicidal ideations, so the school counselor tried contacting mother and father. Because both parents were at work, the school counselor received permission from father to transport the child to the hospital for an evaluation. Several hours later, father arrived at the hospital by himself, and when he realized that the child could not leave yet, he left because he had "better things to do." Later that night, mother and father came to the hospital as the child was being transported to a different hospital under an emergency custody order. The child saw a therapist three times, but when the therapist suggested psychotropic medication, mother removed the child from therapy.
On May 3, 2019, the City of Fredericksburg Department of Social Services (the Department) received a report that the youngest daughter, who was fourteen years old at the time, had attempted to hang herself in the bathroom at school. Father did not believe that the child needed mental health treatment. Mother stated that the child's behavior was "only for attention" and that she did not have any mental health concerns. Mother reluctantly entered into a safety plan and agreed to refrain from abusing the children emotionally, verbally, and physically.
Later that evening, the Department confronted mother after learning that she already had broken the safety plan. Mother agreed to place the girls with someone who could care for the girls temporarily. Mother and father agreed to supervised visitation with the girls. The Department allowed the parents' youngest son to remain in the home, so long as mother agreed to refrain from "all forms of verbal, emotional, physical, and mental abuse."
A few days later, the youngest daughter was hospitalized again for suicidal ideations. Afterwards, mother and father entered into another safety plan and agreed to refrain from contacting their daughters and abusing their youngest son.
The Department subsequently learned that mother had been verbally abusing the children daily and physically abusing them "at least once a week or more." The children reported that mother threw items at them, pulled their hair, punched them, kicked them, and cursed at them. The Department observed bruises on the older daughter's arm. Father had witnessed the abuse, including the time when mother hit their daughters with a "turkey carving knife," yet he did not intervene.
On May 28, 2019, the Department received a report alleging that mother had sexually abused her youngest son, who was eleven years old at the time.4 The Department met with the parents and informed them that the youngest son could not remain in the house with mother. Father and the youngest son agreed to leave the home. After a couple of weeks, father reported that he intended to return home to mother with the children because "it was causing problems for him." Father claimed that everything was "okay" at home and that the children were safe in the home.
Based on the family's extensive history with child protective services, the parents' failure to comply with the safety plans and services, and the parents' inability to comprehend how their actions affected the children, the Department removed the three children from their care and placed them in foster care on June 13, 2019. After the children's removal, father and mother resumed living together.
The Fredericksburg Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (the JDR court) subsequently adjudicated that the three children were abused or neglected and entered dispositional orders. Mother and father appealed the dispositional orders.
Meanwhile, the Department referred mother and father to Family Solutions for a reunification assessment. On November 20, 2019, the evaluator at Family Solutions issued her report after investigating the situation and meeting with the parents. The evaluator opined that the prognosis for successful reunification was "[e]xtremely poor." The evaluator noted that "both parents adamantly denied any form of abuse or neglect" and "rated their parenting performance as superior." The evaluator, however, found that The evaluator noted that father "vacillated back and forth" because at times, he would indicate that mother's anger was a problem but then he would dismiss it. The evaluator emphasized that the youngest daughter had five inpatient psychiatric hospitalizations, yet the parents failed to understand the severity of the situation.
The Department retained Dr. Leigh Hagen, an expert in forensic psychology, to "offer some professional opinions and guidance" with the family. Dr. Hagen reviewed the record, met with the parents, and prepared a report. Dr. Hagen opined that there was "insufficient evidence of sustained and reliable improvement in parenting performance or family functioning since 2006." Dr. Hagen found that the various social services departments involved with the family had "made sufficient effort to rehabilitate the parents by any reasonable means to remedy the circumstances in place prior to the child's initial placement in foster care." He did not believe that "other reasonable services would produce an appreciable result in remedying the circumstances in place prior to the child's initial placement." Dr. Hagen found that father had"not demonstrated either in words or actual conduct either an ability or willingness to stand up to protect these children in a way that [was] consistent and reliable." Dr. Hagen concluded that father and mother were "not in a position to safely parent any of these children."
The Department had ongoing concerns about the parents' ability to care for the children's mental health needs and protect them from further abuse or neglect. On January 27, 2020, the JDR court approved the foster care goal of adoption for the three children and terminated mother's and father's parental rights. Mother and father appealed to the circuit court.
On August 18, 2020, the parties appeared before the circuit court for a hearing on the consolidated appeals from the JDR court. The social worker testified that mother and father still had not developed any insight into the needs of the children. Mother and father repeatedly had told the social worker that the children did not need mental health treatment and that their daughters were just seeking attention. Furthermore, the social worker expressed concern that mother and father had not accepted their roles in the situation and their children's placement in foster care. Mother and father insisted that they were "excellent" parents.
The Department presented evidence that neither one of the girls wanted to visit mother and had not done so, but the girls had had "some visits" with father. The youngest son regularly visited father "via Zoom," but had no visits with mother. All three children were participating in therapy.
At the conclusion of...
To continue reading
Request your trial