COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Frank, Alst on and Senior Judge Coleman

AJARY ROBERTS, SR., SOMETIMES KNOWN AS AJARY D. ROBERTS, JR. MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0338-10-3 PER CURIAM AUGUST 31, 2010 HARRISONBURG ROCKINGHAM SOCIAL SERVICES DISTRICT

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY Thomas J. Wils on, IV, Judge (William G. Wentz, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. (Kimberly Van Horn Gutterma n, Assistant County Attorney; Sheila R. Keesee, Guardian ad litem for the minor children, on brief), for appellee. Appe llee and Guardian ad litem submitting on brief.
Ajary Roberts, Sr., s/k/a Ajary D. Roberts, Jr. (father), appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to his two children, N.R. and L.R. 1 Father argues the trial court erred in (1) allowing Laura Cantrell, an in-home wo rker for Family Educational Services (FES), 2 to testify as to the children’s “interaction with thei r foster mother”; and (2) allowing Kate Bowman, a foster care social worker, to testify the foster mo ther has experience in fostering children. We disagree and affirm the decision of the trial court.

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

1 We will refer to the children by their initials.

2 FES was hired by the Harrisonburg Rockingham Social Services District to assist families in regaining custody of their children.- 2 - BACKGROUND We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prev ailing party below and grant to it all reasonable inferences fa irly deducible therefrom. See Logan v. Fairfax County Dep’t of
Human Dev. , 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 462 (1991). L.R. was born in December 2004 , and N.R. was born in July 2006. In early 2007, L.R. and N.R.’s mother left the marital home sh e shared with appellant for New York. 3 Appellant was approximately fifty-seven years old when his wife left L. R. and N.R. in his care; he was hard of hearing and had been str uggling with a substance abuse problem fo r thirty years. On November 2, 2007, the children were removed on a CHINS (Children in Need of Services) petitio n due to chronic neglect. 4 At the time of removal from the home, th e children were dirty, unattended, living in unsafe housing conditions, and were extremely deve lopmentally delayed. While the children were in foster care for over two year s, father was unable to remedy the unsanitary and unsafe housing conditions or comply with the terms of pr oposed substance abus e recovery courses. Citing Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) , the trial court concluded that , without good cause, father failed to remedy substantially th e conditions which led to L.R.’s and N.R.’s fo ster care placement within a reasonable time. The trial cour t terminated father’s parental rights, 5 and father timely noted his ap peal.
ANALYSIS On review, “[a] trial court is presumed to have thoroughly weighed all the evidence, consider ed the statutory requirements, and made its determination based on the child’s best interests.” Farley [v. Farley] , 9 Va. App. [326,] 329, 387 S.E.2d [794,] 796 [(1990)]. . . . The trial court’s judgment, “when based on evidence heard ore tenus , will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly

3 Mother returned from New Yo rk shortly after th e children were placed in foster care.

4 An older half-brother, D.P., was also removed from the home at that time.

5 Mother’s parental rights to the two children were terminated in the same hearing.- 3 - wrong or without evidence to support it.” Peple v. Peple , 5 Va. App. 414, 422, 364 S.E.2d 232, 237 (1988). Logan , 13 Va. App. at 128, 409 S.E.2d at 463. Testimony Regarding The Foster Mother’s Experience At trial, counsel for Harrisonburg Rockingham Social Services Distri ct asked Bo wman what experience N.R.’s and L.R.’s foster mother had in fostering children. Appellant objected to the line of questioning, arguing that it was irrelevant. The trial court sustai ned appellant’s objection to any further testimony from Bowman rega rding the foster mothe r’s experience in fostering children, and Bowman did not provide a response to the question. As such, we conclude there is no appealable issue with respect to Bowman’s testimony. Testimony Regarding L.R.’s and N.R.’s Relationship with their Foster Mother At trial, Cantrell testified th at L.R. and N.R “clearly love” their foster mother, are “very connected” to her, and “[g] et excited when they se e her.” Appellant contends that in determining whether parental rights should be terminated, the a ppropriate inquiry is whether the parent had been unwilling or unable to remedy the co nditions that led to the continuati on of foster ca re. He asserts the trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding the bond the foster mother had with L.R. and N.R., because “[w]hether . . . the children are better off with thei r foster parents than with their natural parents is not pr obative.” We disagree. “When addressing matters concerning a child , including the termination of a parent’s residual parental rights, the param ount consideration of a trial court is the child’s best interests.” Logan , 13 Va. App. at 128, 409 S.E. 2d at 463. Under Virginia law, eviden ce of the child’s relationship with a foster parent and progress in foster care is admissible, a nd we have previously considered such evidence when determining whether termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests. See Norfolk Div. of Soc. Servs. v. Hardy , 42 Va. App. 546, 555 -56, 593 S.E.2d 528, 537 (2004) (confirming trial cour t’s decision to deny petition for termination of pa rental rights- 4 - where children had a strong bond with foster mother, foster moth er could not adop t the children, and termination of parental rights would require the children be re moved from foster mother’s home in preparation for adoption; termin ation of parental rights was not in the child’s best interests). 6 Here, the trial court explai ned it would allow testimony re garding the foster mother’s relationship with the children to specifically address “t he question of best inte rest[s].” In addition to hearing testimony that N. R. and L.R. were thriving in th eir new environment, it also heard testimony that the devel opmental and speech delays the children had when they entered foster care had been appropriately addressed. 7 Because L.R.’s and N.R.’s rela tionship with their foster mother was relevant to assessing the children’s developm ental and emotional growth, we cannot conclude the trial court erred in admitting and cons idering Cantrell’s statements re garding that relationship as part of its determinat ion of whether terminat ion of father’s pare ntal rights was in the best interests of the children.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing re asons, the trial court’ s ruling is affirmed. Affirmed.

6 In his brief, appellant mi sinterpreted the holding of Hardy when he argued that the Court only considered th e stability provided by the foster home, and not whether the children were thriving in their new environment.

7 The trial court concluded that termination of parental rights was appropriate because (1) father never acknowledged “the re was anything inappropriate as to the way the children were being cared for” when they were removed from his home; (2) “there was a substantial substance abuse risk and history”; (3) there were marital stability risks and issues; (4) ca ring for the children was overwhelming for father; and (5 ) father was “set in his ways” and not w illing to change his behavior or parenting style. It also concluded fa ther had been offered numerous behavioral as well as financial services to help him regain custod y of his children and he was not motivated to participate in those programs.