COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Haley, McCullough and Senior Judge Willis

NEKETIA JACKSON

v. Record No. 0472-11-3

LYNCHBURG DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

MEMORANDUM OPINION*

RODNEY SPRADLEY PER CURIAM

 SEPTEMBER 6, 2011

v. Record No. 0473-11-3

LYNCHBURG DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG

Mosby G. Perrow, III, Judge

(Gary M. Coates, on brief), for appellant Neketia Jackson.

(Ronald D. Henderson, on brief), for appellant Rodney Spradley.

(Susan L. Hartman, Assistant City Attorney; James C. Reeves, III, 

Guardian ad litem for the minor children, on brief), for appellee.

Neketia Jackson (mother) and Rodney Spradley (father) appeal the trial court’s orders 

terminating their parental rights to their four children pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). They 

contend the trial court erred in finding that the evidence was sufficient to prove that termination 

was in the best interests of the children and that they were unwilling or unable within a 

reasonable period of time to remedy substantially the conditions which led to the placement of 

the children into foster care. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude 

that these appeals are without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decisions of the trial 

court. See Rule 5A:27.

 * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
- 2 -

BACKGROUND

On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below 

and grant to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Logan v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep’t 

of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 462 (1991). “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.” Martin v. Pittsylvania Cnty. 

Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20, 348 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1986) (citations omitted).

Mother and father had four children together: two boys, R.S. (born October 21, 1999) 

and T.J.S. (born July 30, 2001); and two girls, T.S. (born March 24, 2003) and R.J.S. (born April 

12, 2004). Mother and father are not married. In August 2007, father and mother separated, and 

father moved from the family’s apartment into an apartment leased by father’s girlfriend, who 

had a child of her own. Father later had a child with the girlfriend, and at the time of the hearing, 

father was still living with the girlfriend, who was pregnant with father’s second child. The 

apartment lease is in the girlfriend’s name. Although father no longer lived with mother and the 

children, he provided support and assistance.

The Lynchburg Department of Social Services (LDSS) became involved with mother and 

the four children in February 2008, after receiving a child protective services (CPS) complaint 

that the youngest child, R.J.S., then not quite four years old, was playing outside unsupervised. 

A CPS worker visited mother a few days later. Although mother was “not cooperative or 

receptive to services,” she signed an agreement to provide adequate supervision to the children. 

On May 2, 2008, a man saw R.J.S. and T.S. outside mother’s apartment unsupervised. One child 

was in a car playing with the gearshift while the other child was under the wheel of the car. The 

man reported the incident to CPS. When the CPS worker came to the house, mother was not 
- 3 -

there. The oldest child (R.S.), then eight years old, was alone inside. Mother arrived in a car a 

few minutes later. Mother denied any wrongdoing or blame, but agreed to sign a safety plan.

On May 10, 2008, LDSS learned that mother was facing eviction due to rodent 

infestation. At that time, LDSS became aware of several additional complaints, such as the 

apartment walls were black with dirt, there was rotting food in the house, neighbors saw the 

children hanging out of the second story windows, and there were men and drug activity in and 

out of the residence between 6:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. Finally, it was reported that R.S. defecated 

on a neighbor’s doorstep because he could not get into the apartment to use the restroom. Based 

on these complaints, a CPS worker spoke with mother about her concerns. Mother denied the 

complaints and continued to minimize the situation.

On May 13, 2008, mother and father agreed to a safety plan whereby the children were to 

live with father, and mother could visit them at father’s home until LDSS said it was safe for 

them to return home. On May 16, 2008, LDSS received a call that the two girls were back at 

mother’s apartment. LDSS arrived to remove the children, but mother and father had taken them 

to another location. When LDSS found them, they were with mother’s aunt, who smelled of 

alcohol.

On May 16, 2008, LDSS removed the children and placed them in foster care. LDSS 

provided services to the parents and children and directed the parents to undergo psychological 

examinations, take parenting classes, attend counseling, abstain from illegal drug use, obtain safe 

housing, and find stable employment. The parents were permitted weekly visitation with the 

children on condition they produce negative drug screenings. Mother produced a negative screen 

in July 2008. Father was not able to do so until August 2008.

The initial foster care service plans had a goal of returning the children home. On 

January 19, 2010, twenty-one months after removing the children, LDSS amended the service 
- 4 -

plan goal to termination with a goal of adoption, and it filed petitions in the juvenile and 

domestic relations district court (juvenile court) to terminate the parents’ rights. On June 23, 

2010, the juvenile court granted the termination petitions. The parents appealed, and the trial 

court conducted a de novo hearing on October 14, 2010.

LDSS foster care worker April Watson worked with the parents and children throughout 

the case and testified that mother completed a parenting class. Watson referred mother to a 

counselor (with Alliance for Families and Children) when the children first came into foster care. 

Although mother and the counselor met several times, mother did not follow up with that 

counselor, so Watson later referred mother to another counselor, Mary Rice. Mother also 

received in-home counseling from Jennifer Bointnott. Watson testified that mother did not 

maintain stable housing or employment during the more than two-year period LDSS had the 

case. Moreover, mother continued to maintain an abusive relationship with a man (Moore) in 

spite of Watson’s repeated warnings that she stop putting herself and the children in such a 

situation. There were at least three incidents of abuse by Moore against mother in July 2009, 

October 2009, and March 2010.

Watson also testified that father did not maintain stable employment. She recalled he 

was employed from July 2008 until February 2009, but said there was a fifteen-month period 

where he was not employed. At the time of the hearing, father was living in his girlfriend’s 

apartment with two children and a third child on the way. Father’s marijuana use was a recurring 

problem throughout the case, and Watson stated that the child that father and his girlfriend had in 

May 2008 was “born prenatally exposed to marijuana.” Moreover, throughout the case, father 

tested positive for marijuana three times, admitted consuming it nine times, and refused to take 

tests seven times. Father’s most recent positive test was on June 23, 2010, and at the October 14, 

2010 hearing, father admitted using marijuana “maybe a month ago.”
- 5 -

Three of the parents’ four children “have been diagnosed with ADHD, PTSD,” and 

receive ongoing services to address their psychological needs. LDSS contacted several relatives 

to take custody of the children, but no one volunteered to do so. Watson observed several 

visitations between the parents and children and noticed that during the later visits the children 

would become upset after the visits. For example, she recalled the boys would cry, have 

nightmares or wet the bed and “it would take several days to adjust to school after visitation.” 

Other times, the children would become upset because mother would complain that she had no 

money or food. When asked why LDSS supported termination Watson testified:

They have been in care for 30 months, which is over the 

permanency timeline. The children, they want to know what is 

going to happen. They want a decision to be made. It is affecting 

them in school and other areas of their lives. . . . I have talked 

many times [with the parents] about what they need to do.

I believe they love their children but I don’t believe they 

took it serious[ly] enough and these children are just sitting and 

waiting and I don’t think it is fair to them any more.

The two boys, R.S. and T.J.S., were placed together in a therapeutic foster home. T.S., 

the older female, was initially placed with her younger sister, R.J.S., in a regular foster home, but 

was moved to a therapeutic foster home, different than the one in which the boys were placed, 

due to her aggressive and hyperactive behavior. T.S. and the two boys meet regularly with the 

same behavior specialist. R.J.S., the youngest child, remains in a regular foster home. All four 

children are doing well in foster care, and the foster parents regularly take the children to meet 

and play as a group.

Susan Henderson is a licensed professional counselor. She began working with T.S., 

R.S., and T.J.S. on July 18, 2008. Henderson testified that the three children exhibited “a lot of 

behaviorial” and “attachment” issues based on their prior experiences with the parents that 

required their placement into foster care and their having to process being separated from the 

parents. T.S. indicated through statements and dolls there was verbal and physical abuse 
- 6 -

between the parents and between the parent and the children in the home. Henderson’s initial 

diagnosis of T.S. was “adjustment disorder with mood and conduct,” which she later diagnosed 

as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). R.S. also showed signs of PTSD. All three of the 

children reported that there were times when mother would forget to feed them. Initially, the 

three children made progress during parent visitations; however, in the late summer of 2009, the 

children exhibited stress and anxiety during visits that became evident in their behavior. T.S. 

had nightmares, withdrawal symptoms, and exhibited aggressive behavior at her foster home. 

The boys also had nightmares, and at school there were “conflicts with peers, oppositional 

behavior with teachers . . . irritability, anxiety [and] crying episodes.” After LDSS changed the 

goal from return home to adoption in mid-January 2010, visitation stopped for four to six weeks. 

During that hiatus, T.S began showing a “remarkable turnaround in behavior anxiety level,” and 

she became “cheerful, playful . . . [and] relaxed.” When T.S. learned in late February 2010 that

visitation would resume, “there was a traumatic change” in her. She became extremely sad and 

irritable and displayed aggressive behavior with the pets in the home. T.S. also showed 

“developmental regression in using baby talk” and “wetting herself,” and she began biting her 

arm. T.S. became so distraught, Henderson recommend that T.S. be excused from the visitation. 

Although T.S. eventually resumed attending visitation, her crying, aggression, and anxiety 

persisted. In addition, the boys’ foster parents and teachers reported that they were also “more 

relaxed during the time visitation stopped.” After visitation resumed in late February 2010, R.S. 

began exhibiting “more sexualized behavior,” such as “touching himself in public places.” T.J.S. 

and T.S. “tended to show more acting out behaviors.” Henderson opined that returning the 

children to the parents would disrupt “an ordered and healthy attachment with the current foster 

parents that has been existing for two and a-half years,” and the biological parents would need 

additional “specialized parenting skills.”
- 7 -

Dr. A. James Anderson conducted a psychological evaluation of mother on August 5, 

2008. Mother “show[ed] marginal intellectual resources” and “some emotional and personality 

problems that are likely to interfere with her functioning in the parent role.” Personality tests 

showed mother to be “an insecure yet overly narcissistic individual with unusually strong 

dependency needs.” She “is excessively self-focused and preoccupied with her own needs and 

feelings to a degree that may prevent her from giving adequate attention to the needs and feelings 

of others.” Dr. Anderson noted that mother appeared “well-intentioned and strongly motivated,” 

but he said he had to emphasize to her how important it was that she actively and sincerely 

participate in the services she was offered and show progress with the problems that limited her 

parental effectiveness.

Dr. Anderson evaluated father on October 23, 2008, and reported that he scored in the 

border range of intelligence. Personality tests suggested father was “an overly narcissistic, 

egocentric, and dependent individual who tends to focus on his own needs and feelings to a 

degree that interferes with his ability to give adequate attention to the needs and feelings of 

others.” Dr. Anderson opined that father “shows less ability to tolerate stress, frustration, and 

delay than most people,” and “[he] is oriented mainly toward immediate payoffs and short-term 

goals rather than longer-range objectives.” Father’s tendency for “pleasure and stimulation over 

achievement-oriented activities” often leads him “to act impulsively without sufficient exercise 

of judgment.”

Rice, a licensed counselor, began counseling mother on February 11, 2009. Rice testified 

that she “had grave concern[s]” that mother would be able to demonstrate an ability to meet the 

needs of herself and the children. According to Rice, mother had a “huge narcissistic internal 

focus on her needs” limiting her ability to take care of the children, and she was “very 

dependant” on the father to perform parental functions, especially disciplining the two boys. 
- 8 -

Rice was also concerned with mother's inability to provide financial support for herself or the 

children. Rice observed several parent visitation sessions and noticed that mother spent a lot of 

time sending text messages on her cell phone. Although mother had some positive interactions 

with the children, she would often “become quite emotional” with them or “display a very harsh 

tone in her discipline.” The children became upset when mother became upset or told the 

children about her personal problems. Although mother has made progress in her depression and 

anger, she still struggles with those issues. Moreover, Rice recalled how mother denied 

responsibility at first and was not fully committed, motivated, and concerned during the early 

stage of the case, thus delaying improvement and progress. Because mother was not able to fully 

understand or acknowledge her role in the children being removed, Rice did not think mother 

could adequately and safely care for the children. When asked how much additional counseling 

mother required, Rice opined “a year minimal and the concern is how engaged and how 

committed to the process [mother] would be.” As to mother’s “personality disturbances,” Rice 

stated “it is likely counseling will never remedy that.”

Vincent Jones provided mental health counseling to father and worked with him 

regarding his role as a parent. Jones explained that father interacted well with the children and 

cared for them, however, he had several personality difficulties, including narcissistic tendencies 

in trying to help too many people and grief and depression issues because of the death of his 

parents, the illness of his grandmother, and the loss of the children. Jones reminded father of his 

many responsibilities and repeatedly advised him he needed to curb his use of marijuana. Jones 

was not concerned with father’s efforts; rather his “concern[s were] the marijuana smoking and 

the personality difficulties and loss issues.” Based on father’s personality issues, Jones felt it 

would be “a significant challenge” for father to try to parent his four children and his girlfriend’s 

three children and deal with the two mothers and maintain full-time employment. Because of the 
- 9 -

other issues father was dealing with, Jones felt father’s initial “focus was making sure the mother 

had the children.”

The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that neither parent had exhibited 

the kind of stability needed to safely rear the children, termination was in the best interests of the 

children, and the parents have been unable within a reasonable period of time to remedy the 

conditions that brought them into foster care. The parents appeal those determinations.

ANALYSIS

Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) provides that residual parental rights may be terminated if it is in 

the best interests of the child and 

[t]he parent or parents, without good cause, have 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 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.

When reviewing a decision to terminate parental rights, we presume the circuit court 

“‘thoroughly weighed all the evidence, considered the statutory requirements, and made its 

determination based on the child’s best interests.’” Toms v. Hanover Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 

Va. App. 257, 265-66, 616 S.E.2d 765, 769 (2005) (quoting Fields v. Dinwiddie Cnty. Dep’t of 

Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 7, 614 S.E.2d 656, 659 (2005)). “The trial court’s judgment, ‘when 

based on evidence heard ore tenus, will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or 

without evidence to support it.’” Id. at 266, 616 S.E.2d at 769 (quoting Logan, 13 Va. App. at 

128, 409 S.E.2d at 463). “In its capacity as factfinder, therefore, the circuit court retains ‘broad 

discretion in making the decisions necessary to guard and to foster a child’s best interests.’” Id.

(quoting Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 328, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990)).
- 10 -

In determining what is in the best interests of a child, this Court has stated:

[A] court must evaluate and consider many factors, including the 

age and physical and mental condition of the child or children; the 

age and physical and mental condition of the parents; the 

relationship existing between each parent and each child; the needs 

of the child or children; the role which each parent has played, and 

will play in the future, in the upbringing and care of the child or 

children; and such other factors as are necessary in determining the 

best interests of the child or children.

Barkey v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 662, 668, 347 S.E.2d 188, 191 (1986).

The children were placed in foster care in May 2008, following several incidents of 

improper supervision, and they remained in foster care for over two years. At the time of 

removal, mother and father, who are not married, had separated, and mother had custody of the 

four young children. Mother and the children lived in unsanitary conditions, mother did not have 

steady employment, and she was unable to provide necessary care and supervision. Father had 

moved in with a girlfriend who had one child from another relationship, one child with father, 

and another child on the way. Psychological tests showed that both parents had significant 

personality disorders, however, when LDSS initially offered services, the parents did not become 

fully engaged in the process. Neither parent was able to obtain stable, long-term employment or 

stable, consistent housing, and father continued to abuse marijuana despite repeated warnings of 

the negative ramifications from such activity. Three of the four children had significant 

psychological problems requiring ongoing counseling. Evidence established that the children 

were thriving in foster care, and the foster care families want to adopt them. Further evidence 

indicated the children underwent a great amount of anxiety and stress during the lengthy period 

they were in foster care awaiting some finality. Testimony from the experts working with the 

parents indicated that neither parent was capable at the time of the October 2010 hearing to 

properly care for the children, and at least another year of counseling and hard work was 

required before either parent may be able to safely care for the children.
- 11 -

We recognize that “‘[t]he termination of [residual] parental rights is a grave, drastic and 

irreversible action.’” Helen W. v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 12 Va. App. 877, 883, 

407 S.E.2d 25, 28-29 (1991) (quoting Lowe v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare of Richmond, 231 Va. 277, 

280, 343 S.E.2d 70, 72 (1986)). However, “[i]t is clearly not in the best interests of a child to 

spend a lengthy period of time waiting to find out when, or even if, a parent will be capable of 

resuming his responsibilities.” Kaywood v. Halifax Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 

540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1990).

Both parents testified to their love for their children, and took steps, including attending 

counseling, to become better parents. The record, however, fully supports the trial court’s 

finding that clear and convincing evidence proved the best interests of R.S., T.J.S., T.S., and 

R.J.S. would be served by terminating the parental rights of each parent pursuant to Code 

§ 16.1-283(C)(2) and that the parents have been unable within a reasonable period of time to 

remedy substantially the conditions which led to the placement of the children in foster care. 

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decisions of the trial court. Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.