COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Frank, Alst on 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 reflect s that the trial court found clear and convincing evidence proved the circumstan ces required for termination only pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). On appeal, Peters chal lenges 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 term ination [of residual parental rights] is in

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

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - § 16.1-283(B) [or] (C) . . . .” Fields v. Dinwiddie Count y Dep’t of Soc. Servs. , 46 Va. App. 1, 8 n.5, 614 S.E.2d 656, 659 n.5 (2005). While the best in terests 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 te rminate 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 lik ely 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 place d in foster care to remedy substantially the conditions which led to or required continuatio n of the child’s foster care placement, notwithstanding reasonable and appropria te 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 parent al rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) and Code § 16.1-283(E)(i). On app eal, she contended the evidence did not support the termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), but she did not challeng e the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the termination pursuant to C ode § 16.1-283(E)(i). This Cour t 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 th e termination under C ode § 16.1-283(C)(2). Fields , 46 Va. App. at 8, 614 S.E.2d at 659. Similarly, Peters contends the evidence wa s insufficient to support the termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B), but does not cha llenge the termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). Peters’ failure to challenge the termination under C ode § 16.1-283(C)(2), the only ground for the termination, l eaves us nothing to address. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

Affirmed.