COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Frank, Alston and Senior Judge Coleman 

BRANDI PETERS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2789-08-3 PER CURIAM 

MAY 19, 2009 

ROANOKE CITY DEPARTMENT 

 OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE 

William D. Broadhurst, Judge 

 (David W. Steidle, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on 

brief. 

 (William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Heather P. Ferguson, 

Assistant City Attorney, on brief), for appellee. Appellee 

submitting on brief. 

 (Eric Roland Spencer, on brief), Guardian ad litem for the minor 

child. Guardian ad litem submitting on brief. 

 Brandi Peters appeals the trial court’s November 10, 2008 order terminating her residual 

parental rights to her two minor children. The final order reflects that the trial court found clear 

and convincing evidence proved the circumstances required for termination only pursuant to 

Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). On appeal, Peters challenges the proof of conditions necessary for 

termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B) and does not challenge the proof of conditions 

necessary for termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). For the following reason, we 

affirm the trial court’s decision. 

“[C]lear and convincing evidence that the termination [of residual parental rights] is in 

the child's best interests is a requirement in common to termination of parental rights under Code 

 *

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

§ 16.1-283(B) [or] (C) . . . .” Fields v. Dinwiddie County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 8 

n.5, 614 S.E.2d 656, 659 n.5 (2005). While the best interests of the child is “the paramount 

consideration of a trial court” in a termination proceeding, Logan v. Fairfax County Dep’t of 

Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991), terminations under Code 

§ 16.1-283(B) and the subsections of Code § 16.1-283(C) provide distinct, “individual bases 

upon which a petitioner may seek to terminate residual parental rights,” City of Newport News 

Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Winslow, 40 Va. App. 556, 563, 580 S.E.2d 463, 466 (2003). 

A termination under Code § 16.1-283(B) requires a finding that: 

 1. The neglect or abuse suffered by such child presented a 

serious and substantial threat to his life, health or development; 

and 

 2. It is not reasonably likely that the conditions which resulted 

in such neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected or 

eliminated so as to allow the child’s safe return to his parent or 

parents within a reasonable period of time. . . . 

Termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) requires proof that the parent, “without 

good cause, ha[s] 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 reasonable and appropriate efforts” of services agencies. 

In Fields, 46 Va. App. at 3, 614 S.E.2d at 657, a parent appealed to this Court from the 

trial court’s decision to terminate her parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) and 

Code § 16.1-283(E)(i). On appeal, she contended the evidence did not support the termination 

under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), but she did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain 

the termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(E)(i). This Court found that, in light of the 

unchallenged termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(E)(i), it was not required to consider the 
- 3 - 

sufficiency of the evidence to support the termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). Fields, 46 

Va. App. at 8, 614 S.E.2d at 659. 

Similarly, Peters contends the evidence was insufficient to support the termination 

pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B), but does not challenge the termination pursuant to Code 

§ 16.1-283(C)(2). Peters’ failure to challenge the termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), the 

only ground for the termination, leaves us nothing to address. 

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision. 

Affirmed.