COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Frank and Clements 

CHARLES EDWARD REED, III 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0466-01-4 PER CURIAM 

 AUGUST 14, 2001 

MICHAEL ABBOTT HERSAM AND 

 REBECCA ANN HERSAM 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STAFFORD COUNTY 

James W. Haley, Jr., Judge 

 (Timothy W. Barbrow, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 No brief for appellee Michael Abbott Hersam. 

 (Rebecca Ann Hersam, pro se, on brief). 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication.

 Charles Edward Reed, III, contends the trial judge erred in 

finding that (1) Reed's continued relationship with his 

illegitimate child, CJR, would be detrimental to the child; (2) 

the adoption of CJR by Michael Hersham was in the child's best 

interests; and (3) he unreasonably withheld consent to that 

adoption. Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the 

parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. 

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision. See

Rule 5A:27. 
BACKGROUND 

 Under familiar principles, we review the evidence on appeal 

in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed below, 

giving it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. 

See Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 328, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 

(1990). On January 24, 2001, the trial court conducted a hearing 

on Michael and Rebecca Hersam's petition to adopt CJR.1 Reed, 

CJR's biological father, was incarcerated at the time of CJR's 

birth and has remained continuously incarcerated since that time. 

Rebecca Ann Hersam, nee Rebecca Ann John (mother), gave birth to 

CJR on May 26, 1995. Reed and mother never married. CJR was six 

years old at the time of the hearing. 

 Mother testified that she took CJR, who was then less than 

one year old, to visit appellant "on a couple of occasions while 

he was in a local jail." Due to the inappropriateness of the 

setting and because Reed focused more on mother than CJR, mother 

stopped the visitation. The last visit took place when CJR was 

approximately one year old. Mother acknowledged that Reed had 

written letters to CJR; however, she felt that his "references to 

criminal activity" were inappropriate for a child. 

 William Tignor, Director of the Stafford County Department of 

Social Services, investigated the Hersams' petition for adoption, 

 1

 The record does not contain a transcript of the hearing; 

therefore, we rely on the recitation of facts from the written 

statement of facts signed by the trial judge. 

- 2 -
conducted a home study, and prepared a report that was admitted 

into the record. Tignor found the home clean and well-furnished. 

According to Tignor, the Hersams "are wonderful parents, very good 

with kids. They treat their children with love, consideration, 

and patience." CJR is in excellent health and his mental and 

emotional development are normal. He enjoys "a warm and loving 

relationship with the [Hersams]." Mother's husband, Michael 

Hersam, "is the only father that [CJR] has known." Tignor 

indicated in his report that CJR "has no knowledge of his 

biological father and has no relationship with him." Moreover, he 

reported that Reed has a "violent, possessive personality" and 

that the mother was fearful of him. Based on Reed's 

circumstances, Tignor opined that his refusal to consent to the 

adoption unreasonably withheld an opportunity for CJR "to have 

permanence." Tignor unequivocally found the Hersams to be 

suitable parents for adoption. 

 Mother married Michael Hersam (Hersham) on July 27, 1996. 

Hersam has been a self-employed truck driver for eleven years. He 

owns his own truck, makes $60,000 per year, and provides health 

and life insurance for himself, the mother, CJR and the Hersams' 

other three children. Mother ceased all contact with Reed in 1996 

when he advised her of his activities in prison, such as gambling, 

taking drugs and joining a gang. Hersam has supported CJR since 

1996, and CJR refers to his stepfather as "Dad." 

- 3 -
 Reed testified that he "is serving a 70 year sentence, with 

50 years suspended." The sentences were the result of 1989 

convictions involving six burglaries and six larcenies. He was on 

probation when he fathered CJR out of wedlock and when he 

committed acts which led to his present incarceration. He became 

eligible for parole in 1997, but has been turned down every year. 

On August 17, 2000, Reed was denied parole due to "his serious 

disregard for property rights and his previous failure to obey 

laws while on probation." Reed's mandatory release date is August 

11, 2007. A Department of Corrections report admitted at the 

hearing indicated that Reed's "anticipated" release dates "are 

based on the assumption that [Reed] will continue to earn good 

time" and that he will not have "good time" credits deducted "as a 

result of misbehavior." Reed testified that "he suffered from 

medical problems which limit his ability to work while 

incarcerated and will interfere and hamper his job opportunities 

upon his release." 

 Reed's father testified that mother "brought [CJR] to his 

home for less than 10 visits in 1995" and that he sent small sums 

of money to the child on special occasions. 

 The trial court found that Reed withheld his consent contrary 

to the best interests of CJR and that a continued relationship 

would be detrimental to the child's welfare. The trial court 

further found "that no relationship had ever existed between Mr. 

Reed and his child due in part to" Reed's criminal activity. 

- 4 -
ANALYSIS 

 "An adoption over objection by a natural parent should not 

be granted except upon clear and convincing evidence that the 

adoption would be in a child's best interest and that it would 

be detrimental to continue the natural parent-child 

relationship." Frye v. Spotte, 4 Va. App. 530, 532, 359 S.E.2d 

315, 317 (1987). "The trial court's decision, when based upon 

an ore tenus hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not 

be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence 

to support it." Id. at 537, 359 S.E.2d at 319-20. An adoption 

of a child may be ordered without the birth parent's consent "if 

that parent's consent to the adoption is being withheld 'contrary 

to best interests of the child as set forth in [Code] 

§ 63.1-225.1.'" Hickman v. Futty, 25 Va. App. 420, 426, 489 

S.E.2d 232, 234 (1997) (citation omitted). 

 Code § 63.1-225.1 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 

In determining whether the valid consent of 

any person whose consent is required is 

withheld contrary to the best interests of 

the child, . . . the court shall consider 

whether the failure to grant the petition 

for adoption would be detrimental to the 

child. In determining whether the failure 

to grant the petition would be detrimental 

to the child, the court 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)' 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 

- 5 -
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. 

 Under the statute, "not only must the prospective adoptive 

placement serve the child's best interests, but the continued 

relationship with the non-consenting parent must prove to be 

detrimental." Hickman, 25 Va. App. at 431, 489 S.E.2d at 237. 

Applying this standard, we have held as follows: 

Detriment is determined, as it was under the 

prior case law, by considering the 

non-consenting parent's fitness, or ability, 

to parent the child as well as the 

relationship the non-consenting parent 

maintains with the child and other children, 

if any. That relationship, as it was under 

the prior case law, is evaluated in terms of 

the non-consenting parent's willingness to 

provide for the child, that parent's record 

of asserting parental rights, taking into 

consideration the extent to which, if any, 

such efforts were thwarted by other people, 

and the quality of the parent-child 

relationship. 

Id. at 431-32, 489 S.E.2d at 237. 

"Finding that the continuation of a poor, 

strained or nonexistent parent-child 

relationship will be detrimental to a 

child's future welfare is difficult. No one 

can divine with any assurance the future 

course of human events. Nevertheless, past 

actions and relationships over a meaningful 

period serve as good indicators of what the 

future may be expected to hold. Trial 

courts may, when presented with clear and 

convincing evidence, make an informed and 

rational judgment and determine that the 

continued relationship between a child and a 

- 6 -
non-consenting parent will be detrimental to 

the child's welfare." 

Linkous v. Kingery, 10 Va. App. 45, 56, 390 S.E.2d 188, 194 (1990) 

(quoting Frye, 4 Va. App. at 536, 359 S.E.2d at 319). 

 Moreover, 

a child need not be in a desperate situation 

before an adoption may be ordered over the 

natural parent's objection. Each case must 

be carefully considered on its own facts and 

circumstances and a showing of abandonment, 

unfitness or other extreme parental 

misconduct, while significant, does not 

always have to be shown before the adoption 

may be granted without parental consent. 

Frye, 4 Va. App. at 536, 359 S.E.2d at 319. 

 The evidence supports the trial court's findings that Reed's 

continued relationship with CJR would be detrimental to the child, 

that the adoption of CJR by Hersam was in the child's best 

interest and that Reed unreasonably withheld consent to the 

adoption. 

 Reed, who has been incarcerated the child's entire life, has 

had no relationship with CJR. Moreover, it was Reed's criminal 

activity that thwarted him from seeing CJR and establishing any 

relationship. The child, who was six years old at the time of the 

hearing, knows little if anything about Reed and certainly does 

not view Reed as his father. The evidence indicated that Reed has 

made inappropriate references in correspondence to CJR and that 

Reed has an aggressive personality of which mother is 

apprehensive. Even if Reed is released in 2007, he and CJR, who 

- 7 -
would be twelve at the time, would be virtual strangers. Reed's 

ability to work and support CJR is limited due to medical 

problems. Meanwhile, CJR lives in a caring and loving environment 

with his mother and the only man he has ever identified as his 

father. The Hersams provide CJR with financial and emotional 

support, and the child is thriving with the only family he has 

ever known. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.

- 8 -