Tibbs v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep't of Family Servs.
| Decision Date | 16 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 0288-21-4 |
| Parties | TAMELA MONIQUE TIBBS v. FAIRFAX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Bruce D. White, Judge.
(Kimberly A. Chadwick, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief.
(May Shallal, Assistant County Attorney; Robin L. Kozin-Angelo Guardian ad litem for the minor child, on brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on brief.
Present: Judges Russell, Raphael and Senior Judge Clements
Tamela Tibbs (mother) appeals the circuit court's order terminating her parental rights. Mother argues that the circuit court erred in finding that the evidence was sufficient to support a termination of her parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) and (E)(i). Specifically mother maintains that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights because the Fairfax County Department of Family Services (the Department) "failed to provide appropriate, available and reasonable services designed to remedy the conditions that led to the child's placement or continuation in foster care." Mother also argues on appeal that there was no evidence demonstrating that termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of the child. Lastly, mother argues that the Department "did not exhaust alternative, less drastic remedies, such as relative placement." 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.
BACKGROUND[1]
"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 and Alex Koiwood (father) are the biological parents to the child who is the subject of this appeal. Before the child was born, mother and father's parental rights for the child's biological sister had already been terminated under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). Due to the case involving the child's biological sister, and based on a finding that the child was at risk of being abused or neglected, the Department removed the child from the parents' care shortly after his birth.
In July 2019, when the child was approximately five months old, mother, who was living in a homeless shelter at the time, underwent a "full psychosocial psychiatric evaluation." During the evaluation, mother was found to have "problems processing verbal information at a level which would be expected for others her age . . . [and] are particularly associated with those who have bipolar disorder." The evaluator also noted that mother had a "long history of difficulties with emotional volatility and behavioral controls" and that she, herself, was placed in foster care from ages fourteen to eighteen. In addition, mother's "significant emotional vulnerability and her being emotionally overwhelmed . . . suggest[ed] a likelihood of an unpredictability of her behavior in the parenting role." Based on his evaluation which spanned over three sessions from July to November 2019, the evaluator diagnosed mother with "bipolar disorder in partial remission." The evaluator noted that over the evaluation period, he noticed an improvement in behavior that was likely due "to the fact that she was taking an injectable psychotropic medication." The evaluator warned, however, that when patients miss a dose of medication, "they can quickly regress in their functioning, become diffuse and disorganized and very rapidly go back to . . . the depths of their mental health diagnosis." Following his evaluation, the evaluator recommended that mother participate in parenting classes, family therapy, individual counseling, and case management support.
The Department then referred mother to intensive case management services with the goal to stabilize her mental health and to "decrease some of [her] anger and aggression." The case-management team recommended substance-abuse treatment and testing, counseling, a "co-occurring disorders group," parenting classes, and a regimen of injectable medications. The case-management team also worked with mother to facilitate access to housing, employment, and other benefits, such as food stamps.
Mother was "very belligerent" and "hostile" towards her treating psychiatrist and case managers. On several occasions in 2019, police had to intervene due to mother's "escalated" behavior and refusal of substance-abuse treatment. Mother was banned from "almost every Department of Family Services' location in the county in 2019" due to her erratic behavior and had to continue her case management services at the Fairfax County courthouse. Mother refused to participate in supervised urine screens and never participated in substance-abuse treatment, or virtual group therapy. Nor was she able to sustain any type of employment for self-sufficiency. Mother claimed to have completed parenting classes, but she never presented a completion certificate. She did use the Department's shelter-support services and remained consistent with her medication for a period of time. The medication helped decrease her aggression.
According to the case manager, however, mother never demonstrated any progress or "capacity to function at an independent level." The case manager testified that mother had "no insight at all into her mental illness, and . . . has not been willing to participate in any type of groups so that she can begin to develop the strategies to change her behaviors." She did not utilize "intensive therapy services, intensive group services, emotional regulation, individual therapy, [or] group therapy" that were offered to her. Mother became pregnant while the child was in foster care, and her psychiatrist discontinued her medication due to her pregnancy. Mother advised her case manager that she did not plan on resuming the medication after the birth of her twins because she felt she no longer needed it.
With her ban still in place from the Department's locations in the county, the Department offered, and mother participated in, supervised visitations with the child at the Fairfax County courthouse in 2020, when the child was approximately eight months old.[2] When the COVID-19 pandemic began, the visitations turned virtual. Mother had "two no-shows in person" and "four cancellations or no-shows as far as virtual visits." When mother appeared at the courthouse for visitations, she was engaged and "listened [and] took redirection," but she sometimes showed frustration over "personal issues that she was struggling with outside of the visits with [the child]." Mother's additional concerns that would cause her to be frustrated and "emotionally distraught" included her pregnancy, keeping her housing, keeping her doctors' appointments, and maintaining her mental health and well-being.
At times, mother would also forget to bring supplies such as diapers, toys, or baby food to the visitations. On average, mother was thirty to forty minutes tardy to the visitations. During one visit, the supervising counselor smelled marijuana coming from mother. Mother fell asleep during another visitation. When asked what ongoing concerns she had about mother after eight months of supervising visits, the case manager said she would like mother to be more "engaged" and keep up with the child's doctors' appointments and other parts of his life beyond her visits. Overall, mother did not exhibit progress in parenting skills sufficient to warrant a recommendation from the Department for unsupervised visitations with child.
The Department ultimately filed for termination of mother's parental rights due to mother's "mental health," "non-compliance with mental health services," "continued instability," "lack of accountability," "limited ability for regulation," and her "limited . . . insight of her mental health." The Department also reasoned that she was unable "to provide a safe and stable consistent home for [the child] based on her inability to "be independent in the community."
The JDR court subsequently entered a permanency planning order, approving a permanent goal of adoption, as well as a termination of parental rights order, finding that termination was in the best interest of the child. Mother and father appealed, and the parties appeared before the circuit court on March 15 and 16, 2021. Father expressed on the second day of the trial, however, that he no longer wished to participate in the proceedings.
The Department presented evidence about its efforts to find alternative placements to foster care. Initially, the Department placed the child with his sister in a great aunt's home, but that placement did not work for the child. Mother had suggested the child's maternal grandmother as a possible placement, but the Department determined that the maternal grandmother was not a viable placement option due to her history of involvement with Child Protective Services.
At the conclusion of the evidence in the circuit court, the Department emphasized that there had already been a termination of mother's parental rights of the child's sibling and argued that termination would be in the best interest of the child in this case. The Department maintained that mother had been The Department argued that mother failed to prioritize the child and failed to remedy the conditions that brought the child into care.
Mother...
To continue reading
Request your trial