In determining whether the valid consent of any person whose consent is required is withheld contrary to the best interests of the child, or is unobtainable, the circuit court or juvenile and domestic relations district court, as the case may be, shall consider whether granting the petition pending before it would be in the best interest of the child. The circuit court or juvenile and domestic relations district court, as the case may be, shall consider all relevant factors, including the birth parent(s)' efforts to obtain or maintain legal and physical custody of the child; whether the birth parent(s) are currently willing and able to assume full custody of the child; whether the birth parent(s)' efforts to assert parental rights were thwarted by other people; the birth parent(s)' ability to care for the child; the age of the child; the quality of any previous relationship between the birth parent(s) and the child and between the birth parent(s) and any other minor children; the duration and suitability of the child's present custodial environment; and the effect of a change of physical custody on the child.
1995, cc. 772, 826, § 63.1-225.1; 2000, c. 830, § 63.1-219.13; 2002, c. 747; 2003, c. 467; 2006, cc. 825, 848.
Notes of Decisions
Copeland v. Todd, 715 S.E.2d 11 (Va. 2011).
· cites it 30× “2-1203 states that if, after consideration of the evidence, the circuit court finds that the valid consent of any person or agency whose consent is required is withheld contrary to the best interests of the child as set forth in Code § 63.2-1205, or is unobtainable, the circuit…”
Gray v. Bourne, 614 S.E.2d 661 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 38× “The court then reviewed the evidence as it related to each of the specific factors identified in Code § 63.2-1205 for determining whether a birth parent's consent was being withheld contrary to the child's best interests.”
Todd v. Copeland, 689 S.E.2d 784 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 21× “Copeland also challenges the constitutionality of Code § 63.2-1205 on due process and equal protection grounds.”
Gooch v. Harris, 662 S.E.2d 95 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 20× “2-1203(A), which authorizes adoption of a child over the objection of a biological parent under certain circumstances outlined in Code § 63.2-1205. At the time of the circuit court hearing, Gooch was incarcerated on a probation violation arising out of an earlier cocaine…”
T.S.G. v. B.A.S., 665 S.E.2d 854 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 8× “” For the reasons stated in Section B, this argument is also without merit. Finally, mother makes the argument that the circuit court did not consider “whether the continuation of [her] relationship with the child was detrimental to the child.”
Alexandra Mulvey v. Gerald Philip Rhoads & Linda MacNally (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 37× “Mulvey further contended that she “is not an unfit parent and therefore severing the relationship between her and her daughter violates the intent of Code § 63.2-1205 and the Virginia and United States constitutions.”
Mary Kyle Chaphe v. William Carson Skeens (Va. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 26× “The first five challenge factual findings underlying the court’s determination that father withheld his consent to the adoption contrary to the best interests of the children under Code § 63.2-1205. The sixth assignment of error asserts a constitutional due process violation.”
Michael Stacy Graves, Jr. & Lisa Anne Graves v. Neil Edward Jones (Va. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 23× “2-1241; (3) failing to grant the petition for adoption “upon the presentation of clear and convincing evidence that an order of adoption, upon consideration of the factors set forth under Virginia Code § 63.2-1205, was in the best interests of the child and consent was withheld…”
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.