COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Elder, Fe lton and Senior Judge Willis

CITY OF NORFOLK DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES v. Record Nos. 0733-05-1, 0734-05-1 and 0735-05-1

CANDICE HARRIS MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM CITY OF NORFOLK AUGUST 2, 2005 DEPARMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES v. Record Nos. 0736-05-1, 0737-05-1 and 0738-05-1

DONNIE LEE

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK Everett A. Mar tin, Jr., Judge (Adam D. Melita, Assistant City At torney, on briefs), for appellant. No brief for appellee Candice Harris. (Kelly B. St. Clair; St. Clai r Law Firm, on brief), for appellee Donnie Lee.

The City of Norfolk Departme nt of Human Services (DHS) ap peals from a decree of the trial court finding that DHS failed to prove “a stat utory basis for termination [of the parental rights of the appellees] by clear and convincing evidence.” On appeal, DHS conte nds the trial court erred in (1) requiring evidence of abuse or neglect in order to determine whether the elements required by either Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) or 16.1-283(E)(i) ha d been proven, and (2) ruling that there was no legal basis to grant a termination of residual pa rental rights under eith er subsection. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that DHS failed to preserve these issues

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - in the trial court. Rule 5A:18. Accordingly, we summarily af firm the decision of the trial court.

Rule 5A:27. DHS concedes it did not pres erve the questions presented on appeal, but argues that the good cause exception to Rule 5A:18 enab les this Court to address the issues. 1 We disagree. The “good cause” exception to Rule 5A:18 will not be invoked wher e the appellant had the opportunity to raise the issu e at trial but did not do so. See M. Morgan Cherry & Assocs. v. Cherry , 38 Va. App. 693, 702, 568 S.E.2d 391, 396 (2002) ( en banc ). DHS contends it had no such opportunity in this case. Specifically, DHS argues: The opportunity which might have pr esented itself at trial did not materialize, as the proceedings we re concluded too abruptly. The opportunity which might have presen ted itself upon presentation of a final decree never materialized as the court, without warning, waived Rule 1:13. The opportunity to object to the written order never materialized as no final decr ee was ever provided or sent to the parties. We do not accept DHS’s contentions.

At the conclusion of the trial court’s Febr uary 28, 2005 hearing, the judge gave an oral ruling in which he stated why he was dismissing the petitions. Nothing in the record indicates

that DHS could not have voiced its objections to the oral ruling at that point. Furthermore, the

final decree commands the clerk to “s end copies of this Decree to c ounsel for the parties . . . .” “A court speaks only through its orders.” Cunningham v. Smith , 205 Va. 205, 208, 135 S.E.2d 770, 773 (1964). Again, nothing in the record belies the veracity of the trial court’s decree, and nothing indicates that the clerk failed to perform the command contained therein. As such, nothing in the record demonstrates that DHS did not have the opportunity to file a petition for rehearing or written obj ections to the decree.

1 DHS does not contend that the ends of ju stice exception to Rule 5A:18 applies. Therefore, we do not address that exception.- 3 - For these reasons, we find that DHS has not demonstrated good cause for failing to preserve the questions presented. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial

court. Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.