Va. Code » Title 16.1. Courts Not of Record » Chapter 11. Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Courts » Article 9. Disposition
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-288 (2026)

Protection of religious affiliations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In placing a child under the guardianship or custody of an individual or of a private agency or institution, the court shall whenever practicable select a person, or an agency or institution governed by persons, of the same religious faith as that of the parents of the child, or in case of a difference in the religious faith of the parents and religious faith of the child, or, if the religious faith of the child is not ascertainable, then of the faith of either of the parents or of the child, unless the parent or parents of the child waive such selection.

Code 1950, § 16.1-182; 1956, c. 555; 1977, c. 559.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2022 · leading case: Lecky v. Reed, 456 S.E.2d 538 (Va. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lecky v. Reed, 456 S.E.2d 538 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “‘a reasonable period of time’ is different for a minor than for an adult,” the court determined that the “age of the mother” constituted “good cause” for her failure to satisfy the “ ‘rea *311 sonable time’ standard” of Code § 16.”
Christopher Farrell v. Warren Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 719 S.E.2d 329 (Va. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, we find that Code § 16.1-288(B) comports with the Supreme Court’s most recent enunciation of constitutional requirements even though it does not require the trial court to make an explicit finding regarding detriment to the child.”
City of Newport News Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Winslow, 580 S.E.2d 463 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). “The parties having last appeared before the Court on June 28, 2002 for Jeanette Winslow’s appeal of the Newport News Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court order, dated April 18, 2002, terminating her residual parental rights to the above-named children, pursuant to §…”
Dawn Farrell v. Warren Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 719 S.E.2d 313 (Va. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Code § 16.1-288(B)(2) requires a trial court to “take into consideration the efforts made to rehabilitate the parent or parents by any public or private social, medical, mental health or other rehabilitative agencies prior to the child’s initial placement in foster care” when…”
Mabe v. Wythe Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 671 S.E.2d 425 (Va. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “The trial court terminated appellant’s residual parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-288(C) finding appellant, without good cause, has been unwilling or unable within a reasonable period of time not to exceed twelve months from the date the child was placed in foster care to…”
Lynchburg Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Channel Boxley (Va. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “An “[a]bused or neglected child” means any child [w]hose parents or other person responsible for his care, creates or inflicts, threatens to create or inflict, or allows to be created or inflicted upon such child a physical or mental injury by other than accidental means, or…”
Lynchburg Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Channel Boxley (Va. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “An “[a]bused or neglected child” means any child [w]hose parents or other person responsible for his care, creates or inflicts, threatens to create or inflict, or allows to be created or inflicted upon such child a physical or mental injury by other than accidental means, or…”
Jasmine Walker v. Breyon Pierce (Va. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “” Code § 16.1-288. 1. The evidence is sufficient to prove that mother committed an act of family abuse.”
Jasmine Walker v. Breyon Pierce (Va. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “” Code § 16.1-288. 1. The evidence is sufficient to prove that mother committed an act of family abuse.”
Kimberley Anne Prentice, f/k/a Kimberley Anne Cook v. Brian Christopher Cook (Va. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “See Code § 16.1-288. Therefore, the court did not err in its consideration of the “history of family abuse” factor in Code § 20-124.”
In re McBride, 60 Va. Cir. 261 (2002). · cites it 3× “At issue is whether Shaunice McBride is an abused or neglected child within the meaning of Va. Code § 16.1-288, and whether, as a result, Diamond McBride is at risk of being abused or neglected.”
Nathan Seibert v. Alexandria Div. of Soc. Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “was abused and neglected as defined by Code § 16.1-288 and that Seibert had been alone with children in violation of the terms of his probation.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-288(B) — 1 case
Christopher Farrell v. Warren Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 719 S.E.2d 329 (Va. Ct. App. 2012). “Accordingly, we find that Code § 16.1-288(B) comports with the Supreme Court’s most recent enunciation of constitutional requirements even though it does not require the trial court to make an explicit finding regarding detriment to the child.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-288(B)(2) — 1 case
Dawn Farrell v. Warren Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 719 S.E.2d 313 (Va. Ct. App. 2012). “Code § 16.1-288(B)(2) requires a trial court to “take into consideration the efforts made to rehabilitate the parent or parents by any public or private social, medical, mental health or other rehabilitative agencies prior to the child’s initial placement in foster care” when…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-288(C) — 1 case
Mabe v. Wythe Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 671 S.E.2d 425 (Va. Ct. App. 2009). “The trial court terminated appellant’s residual parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-288(C) finding appellant, without good cause, has been unwilling or unable within a reasonable period of time not to exceed twelve months from the date the child was placed in foster care to…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-288(C)(2) — 2 cases
Lecky v. Reed, 456 S.E.2d 538 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). “‘a reasonable period of time’ is different for a minor than for an adult,” the court determined that the “age of the mother” constituted “good cause” for her failure to satisfy the “ ‘rea *311 sonable time’ standard” of Code § 16.”
City of Newport News Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Winslow, 580 S.E.2d 463 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). “The parties having last appeared before the Court on June 28, 2002 for Jeanette Winslow’s appeal of the Newport News Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court order, dated April 18, 2002, terminating her residual parental rights to the above-named children, pursuant to §…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.