section 16.1-283(c) parental rights in Virginia

2022Considering the totality of the record, the circuit court did not err in terminating mother’s parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2).5 5 With respect to mother’s challenge of the foster care goal of adoption, this Court’s “decision to affirm the termination order necessarily subsumes this aspect of [her] appeal because a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard governs judicial modifications of foster care plans.” Toms, 46 Va. App. at 265 n.3. -9- “When a lower court’s judgment is made on alternative grounds, this Court need only determine whether any of the alternatives is sufficient to su

2022Terminations of parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) “hinge . . . on the demonstrated failure of the parent to make reasonable changes.” Toms, 46 Va. App. at 271 .

2023The circuit court terminated Bennett’s parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), which authorizes a court to terminate parental rights if: 9 See Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411, 419 (2017) (“The doctrine of judicial restraint dictates that we decide cases ‘on the best and narrowest grounds available.’” (quoting Commonwealth v. Swann, 290 Va. 194, 196 (2015))). - 14 - The parent or parents, without good cause, have been unwilling or unable within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 12 months from the date the child was placed in foster care to remedy substantially the conditions whi

2023The circuit court terminated father’s parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), which authorizes a court to terminate parental rights if: The parent or parents, without good cause, have been unwilling or unable within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 12 months from the date the child was placed in foster care to remedy substantially the conditions which led to or required continuation of the child’s foster care placement, notwithstanding the reasonable and appropriate efforts of social, medical, mental health or other rehabilitative agencies to such end. “[S]ubsection C termination

2022Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540 (1990)).3 Considering the totality of the circumstances, the circuit court did not err in terminating mother’s parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2).

2021Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540 (1990)). - 11 - Based on the record, the circuit court did not err in terminating mother’s and father’s parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(B) and finding that termination was in the children’s best interests.5 Relative placement Mother and father contend that the circuit court “erred in refusing to transfer custody” of two of their children to their adult daughter, who was “a willing and able relative.” Before terminating a parent’s rights, “the court shall give a consideration to granting custody to a person with a legitimate interest.” Code § 16.1-283(A).

2018Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 7 , 614 S.E.2d 656, 659 (2005); then quoting Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 328 , 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990); and then quoting Fields, 46 Va. App. at 7 , 614 S.E.2d at 659 ). -5- A. Termination of Parental Rights The circuit court terminated Horton’s residual parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C), which states, in pertinent part: The residual parental rights of a parent or parents of a child placed in foster care as a result of court commitment . . . may be terminated if the court finds, based upon clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interes

2018Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 7 , 614 S.E.2d 656, 659 (2005); then quoting Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 328 , 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990); and then quoting Fields, 46 Va. App. at 7 , 614 S.E.2d at 659 ). -5- A. Termination of Parental Rights The circuit court terminated Horton’s residual parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C), which states, in pertinent part: The residual parental rights of a parent or parents of a child placed in foster care as a result of court commitment . . . may be terminated if the court finds, based upon clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interes

2018Servs. v. Winslow, 40 Va. App. 556, 562-63 , 580 S.E.2d 463, 466 (2003)). -8- Contrary to mother’s arguments, the circuit court did not err in terminating mother’s parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B).

2018Servs. v. Winslow, 40 Va. App. 556, 562-63 , 580 S.E.2d 463, 466 (2003)). -8- Contrary to mother’s arguments, the circuit court did not err in terminating mother’s parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B).

2022Considering the totality of the record, the circuit court did not err in terminating mother’s parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2).5 5 With respect to mother’s challenge of the foster care goal of adoption, this Court’s “decision to affirm the termination order necessarily subsumes this aspect of [her] appeal because a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard governs judicial modifications of foster care plans.” Toms, 46 Va. App. at 265 n.3. -9- “When a lower court’s judgment is made on alternative grounds, this Court need only determine whether any of the alternatives is sufficient to su

2022We find that the circuit court did not err in terminating mother’s parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(B), so we need not reach whether mother’s parental rights also should have been terminated under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2).6 6 Moreover, “[w]hen a lower court’s judgment is made on alternative grounds, this Court need only determine whether any of the alternatives is sufficient to sustain the judgment.” Castillo, 68 Va. App. at 574 n.9; see also Fields v. Dinwiddie Cnty.

2023Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 7-8 (2005) (finding that because the appellant had not challenged the court’s decision to terminate her parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(E)(i), this Court did not need to address her sufficiency argument regarding termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2)). “[I]n ‘situations in which there [are] one or more alternative holdings on an issue,’ the appellant’s ‘failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113, 116 (2005) (quoting United States v.

2023Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 8 (2005) (affirming termination of parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(E)(i) and declining to address termination under another subsection).

2022Servs., 14 Va. App. 333, 338 (1992)). -9- Father argues that the circuit court erred in terminating his parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) because he “had made substantial efforts to remedy the conditions which placed the child in foster care, by obtaining employment, housing and receiving some treatment and therapy.” The record, however, reflects that father failed to complete parenting classes, domestic violence treatment, substance abuse treatment, individual therapy, and couples counseling during the three years following the children’s placement in foster care.

2022Servs., 14 Va. App. 333, 338 (1992)). -9- Father argues that the circuit court erred in terminating his parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) because he “had made substantial efforts to remedy the conditions which placed the child in foster care, by obtaining employment, housing and receiving some treatment and therapy.” The record, however, reflects that father failed to complete parenting classes, domestic violence treatment, substance abuse treatment, individual therapy, and couples counseling during the three years following the children’s placement in foster care.

2018When considering termination of parental rights, “the paramount consideration of a trial court is the child’s best interests.” Logan, 13 Va. App. at 128 , 409 S.E.2d at 463 . -4- Assignment of error #1 Father argues that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) and finding that he had not maintained contact or planned for the child’s future for a period of six months.

2018When considering termination of parental rights, “the paramount consideration of a trial court is the child’s best interests.” Logan, 13 Va. App. at 128 , 409 S.E.2d at 463 . -4- Assignment of error #1 Father argues that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) and finding that he had not maintained contact or planned for the child’s future for a period of six months.

2022Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20 (1986)).5 The circuit court terminated mother’s parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(B), which states that a parent’s parental rights may be terminated if it is in the best interests of the child and: 1.

2021Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20 (1986)). -4- The circuit court found that it was in the best interests of the child to terminate father’s parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) and (2).

2023Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 7-8 (2005) (finding that because the appellant had not challenged the court’s decision to terminate her parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(E)(i), this Court did not need to address her sufficiency argument regarding termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2)). “[I]n ‘situations in which there [are] one or more alternative holdings on an issue,’ the appellant’s ‘failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113, 116 (2005) (quoting United States v.

2022Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 7-8 (2005) (finding that because the appellant had not challenged the court’s decision to terminate her parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(E)(i), the Court did not need to address her sufficiency argument regarding termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2)). “[I]n ‘situations in which there [are] one or more alternative holdings on an issue,’ the appellant’s ‘failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113, 116 (2005) (quoting United States v.

2023Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 7-8 (2005) (finding that because the appellant had not challenged the court’s decision to terminate her parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(E)(i), this Court did not need to address her sufficiency argument regarding termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2)). “[I]n ‘situations in which there [are] one or more alternative holdings on an issue,’ the appellant’s ‘failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113, 116 (2005) (quoting United States v.

2022Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 7-8 (2005) (finding that because the appellant had not challenged the court’s decision to terminate her parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(E)(i), the Court did not need to address her sufficiency argument regarding termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2)). “[I]n ‘situations in which there [are] one or more alternative holdings on an issue,’ the appellant’s ‘failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113, 116 (2005) (quoting United States v.

2003Serv., 14 Va.App. 333, 340 , 417 S.E.2d 1, 5 (1992) (upholding the trial court’s decision to terminate residual parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(13) and (C)(1)); Lowe v. Dept. of Public Welfare, 231 Va. 277, 281-82 , 343 S.E.2d 70, 73 (1986) (upholding termination of residual parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B)(2)); and Lecky v. Reed, 20 Va.App. 306, 313-14 , 456 S.E.2d 538, 541 (1995) (ordering termination of residual parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)).

2003Serv., 14 Va.App. 333, 340 , 417 S.E.2d 1, 5 (1992) (upholding the trial court’s decision to terminate residual parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(13) and (C)(1)); Lowe v. Dept. of Public Welfare, 231 Va. 277, 281-82 , 343 S.E.2d 70, 73 (1986) (upholding termination of residual parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B)(2)); and Lecky v. Reed, 20 Va.App. 306, 313-14 , 456 S.E.2d 538, 541 (1995) (ordering termination of residual parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)).

2017Finally, Code § 16.1-283(C) provides that the court must find “based upon clear and convincing evidence, that [termination] is in the best interests of the child.” The factors to be considered in determining the best interests of the child include “[t]he age and physical and mental condition of the child . . . [t]he age and physical and mental condition of each parent . . . [t]he needs of the child . . . and [s]uch other factors as the court deems necessary and proper to the determination.” Code § 20-124.3; see also Barkey v. Commmonwealth, 2 Va. App. 662, 668 , 347 S.E.2d 188, 191 (1986).

2017Finally, Code § 16.1-283(C) provides that the court must find “based upon clear and convincing evidence, that [termination] is in the best interests of the child.” The factors to be considered in determining the best interests of the child include “[t]he age and physical and mental condition of the child . . . [t]he age and physical and mental condition of each parent . . . [t]he needs of the child . . . and [s]uch other factors as the court deems necessary and proper to the determination.” Code § 20-124.3; see also Barkey v. Commmonwealth, 2 Va. App. 662, 668 , 347 S.E.2d 188, 191 (1986).

2006Servs., 46 Va. App. 257 , 616 S.E.2d 765 (2005),] and the case at bar, the remedial acts taken by [mother] and the fact that parents[’] rights should not be severed lightly, the Department should not be allowed to obtain termination of parental rights pursuant to Section 16.1-283(B).” “The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial court.” Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308 , 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998).

2006Servs., 46 Va. App. 257 , 616 S.E.2d 765 (2005),] and the case at bar, the remedial acts taken by [mother] and the fact that parents[’] rights should not be severed lightly, the Department should not be allowed to obtain termination of parental rights pursuant to Section 16.1-283(B).” “The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial court.” Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308 , 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998).

2012Servs., 48 Va.App. 537, 550 , 633 S.E.2d 196, 202 (2006) (relying on a mother’s continued drug use to support terminating her parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(B)).

2012Servs., 48 Va.App. 537, 550 , 633 S.E.2d 196, 202 (2006) (relying on a mother’s continued drug use to support terminating her parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(B)).

2007Moreover, she contends that because PDSS failed to provide her with additional services after the child sustained the injury to her wrist, the trial court erred by terminating her parental rights to the child under Code § 16.1-283(B). “‘The termination of parental rights is a grave, drastic and irreversible action.’” Helen W. v. Fairfax County Dep’t of Human Dev., 12 Va. App. 877, 883 , 407 S.E.2d 25, 28-29 (1991) (quoting Lowe v. Dep’t of Public Welfare of the City of Richmond, 231 Va. 277, 280 , 343 S.E.2d 70, 72 (1986)).

2007Moreover, she contends that because PDSS failed to provide her with additional services after the child sustained the injury to her wrist, the trial court erred by terminating her parental rights to the child under Code § 16.1-283(B). “‘The termination of parental rights is a grave, drastic and irreversible action.’” Helen W. v. Fairfax County Dep’t of Human Dev., 12 Va. App. 877, 883 , 407 S.E.2d 25, 28-29 (1991) (quoting Lowe v. Dep’t of Public Welfare of the City of Richmond, 231 Va. 277, 280 , 343 S.E.2d 70, 72 (1986)).

2012Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 747-48 , 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1391-92 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982).

2012Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 747-48 , 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1391-92 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982).

2025“The preservation of the family, and in particular the parent-child relationship, is an important goal for not only the parents but also government itself.” Weaver v. Roanoke Dep’t of Human Res., 220 Va. 921, 926 (1980).

2024“The preservation of the family, and in particular the parent-child relationship, is an important goal for not only the parents but also government itself.” Weaver v. Roanoke Dep’t of Human Res., 220 Va. 921, 926 (1980).

2025“This fundamental liberty interest pertains to citizens and aliens alike because ‘the Due Process Clause applies to all “persons” within the United rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283 is done in accordance with the “best interests of the child,” and thus falls within the scope of 22 U.S.C.A. § 9004 (a). - 11 - States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.’” In re B, 756 N.W.2d at 241 (quoting Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001)).

2024“This fundamental liberty interest pertains to citizens and aliens alike because ‘the Due Process Clause applies to all “persons” within the United rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283 is done in accordance with the “best interests of the child,” and thus falls within the scope of 22 U.S.C.A. § 9004 (a). - 11 - States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.’” In re B, 756 N.W.2d at 241 (quoting Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001)).

2025Servs. v. Welch, 64 Va. App. 34, 46 (2014).

2024Servs. v. Welch, 64 Va. App. 34, 50 (2014).

2024Servs. v. Hardy, 42 Va. App. 546, 552 (2004)).

2024Servs. v. Hardy, 42 Va. App. 546, 552 (2004)). - 10 - “Where, as here, the court hears the evidence ore tenus, its finding is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Simms v. Alexandria Dep’t of Cmty. & Hum.

2023Notwithstanding mother’s challenge to Code § 16.1-283(E)(iv), mother does not dispute that the circuit court properly entered an order for the involuntary termination of mother’s residual parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). -8- v. Stokes, 287 Va. 446 , 452-53 (2014) (finding that a party must assign error to each articulated basis for a ruling, and the appellant could not prevail where he had not challenged one of three grounds for the decision); Magco of Md., Inc. v. Barr, 262 Va. 1, 1 (2001) (deciding that where there is an independent basis for the judgment that is not challenged o

2022Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 7-8 (2005) (finding that because the appellant had not challenged the court’s decision to terminate her parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(E)(i), the Court did not need to address her sufficiency argument regarding termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2)). “[I]n ‘situations in which there [are] one or more alternative holdings on an issue,’ the appellant’s ‘failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113, 116 (2005) (quoting United States v.

2022That subsection is not involved in this appeal. - 13- Steele-Parker noted their appeals to this Court invoking our jurisdiction pursuant to Code § 17.1-405(3)(e).18 The majority correctly notes that a final judgment or order “is one which disposes of the entire action and leaves nothing to be done except the ministerial superintendence of execution of the judgment.” Super Fresh Food Mkts. of Va., Inc. v. Ruffin, 263 Va. 555, 560 (2002).

2022That subsection is not involved in this appeal. - 13- Steele-Parker noted their appeals to this Court invoking our jurisdiction pursuant to Code § 17.1-405(3)(e).18 The majority correctly notes that a final judgment or order “is one which disposes of the entire action and leaves nothing to be done except the ministerial superintendence of execution of the judgment.” Super Fresh Food Mkts. of Va., Inc. v. Ruffin, 263 Va. 555, 560 (2002).

2021See Castillo, 68 Va. App. at 568 (trial testimony of “several relatives” and evidence of Department’s investigation provided circuit court with “ample evidence” to consider relative placements); Brown, 43 Va. App. at 218 (statute satisfied where grandmother “testified at the hearing and informed the court of her ‘suitability and willingness’ to take [minor] into her custody); Hawthorne, 33 Va. App. at 139 (statute satisfied where the trial court heard testimony of father’s aunt concerning her willingness and suitability for placement before it ordered the termination of his parental rights).

2021See Castillo, 68 Va. App. at 568 (trial testimony of “several relatives” and evidence of Department’s investigation provided circuit court with “ample evidence” to consider relative placements); Brown, 43 Va. App. at 218 (statute satisfied where grandmother “testified at the hearing and informed the court of her ‘suitability and willingness’ to take [minor] into her custody); Hawthorne, 33 Va. App. at 139 (statute satisfied where the trial court heard testimony of father’s aunt concerning her willingness and suitability for placement before it ordered the termination of his parental rights).

2021See Castillo, 68 Va. App. at 568 (trial testimony of “several relatives” and evidence of Department’s investigation provided circuit court with “ample evidence” to consider relative placements); Brown, 43 Va. App. at 218 (statute satisfied where grandmother “testified at the hearing and informed the court of her ‘suitability and willingness’ to take [minor] into her custody); Hawthorne, 33 Va. App. at 139 (statute satisfied where the trial court heard testimony of father’s aunt concerning her willingness and suitability for placement before it ordered the termination of his parental rights).

2021See Castillo, 68 Va. App. at 568 (trial testimony of “several relatives” and evidence of Department’s investigation provided circuit court with “ample evidence” to consider relative placements); Brown, 43 Va. App. at 218 (statute satisfied where grandmother “testified at the hearing and informed the court of her ‘suitability and willingness’ to take [minor] into her custody); Hawthorne, 33 Va. App. at 139 (statute satisfied where the trial court heard testimony of father’s aunt concerning her willingness and suitability for placement before it ordered the termination of his parental rights).

2023Notwithstanding mother’s challenge to Code § 16.1-283(E)(iv), mother does not dispute that the circuit court properly entered an order for the involuntary termination of mother’s residual parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). -8- v. Stokes, 287 Va. 446 , 452-53 (2014) (finding that a party must assign error to each articulated basis for a ruling, and the appellant could not prevail where he had not challenged one of three grounds for the decision); Magco of Md., Inc. v. Barr, 262 Va. 1, 1 (2001) (deciding that where there is an independent basis for the judgment that is not challenged o

2022Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 7-8 (2005) (finding that because the appellant had not challenged the court’s decision to terminate her parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(E)(i), the Court did not need to address her sufficiency argument regarding termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2)). “[I]n ‘situations in which there [are] one or more alternative holdings on an issue,’ the appellant’s ‘failure to address one of the holdings results in a waiver of any claim of error with respect to the court’s decision on that issue.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 113, 116 (2005) (quoting United States v.

2026“It is well-settled that a party who challenges the ruling of a lower court must on appeal assign error to each articulated basis for that ruling.” Ferguson v. Stokes, 287 Va. 446 , 452 (2014) (quoting Manchester Oaks Homeowners Ass’n v. Batt, 284 Va. 409 , 421 (2012)).

2014See Manchester Oaks Homeowners Ass’n v. Batt, 284 Va. 409 , 421-22, 732 S.E.2d 690 , 698 (2012) (“It is well-settled that a party who challenges the ruling of a lower court must on appeal assign error to each articulated basis for that ruling.”).