COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

MARK U. PRICE 

v. Record No. 0035-95-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

ARLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES DECEMBER 19, 1995 

AND 

LINDA L. DONLEY 

v. Record No. 0065-95-4 

ARLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY 

Benjamin N. A. Kendrick, Judge 

 (Mark Urry Price, pro se, on briefs). 

 (Linda L. Donley, pro se, on briefs). 

 

 (Mary E. Craig, Assistant County Attorney, 

on brief), for appellee. 

 Mark U. Price and Linda L. Donley appeal the decision of the 

circuit court terminating their parental rights to their two 

daughters, Lynda Elizabeth ("Ellie") and Sara Vanessa. Upon 

reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that 

these appeals are without merit. Accordingly, we summarily 

affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27. 

 "When addressing matters concerning a child, including the 

termination of a parent's residual parental rights, the paramount 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

consideration of a trial court is the child's best interests." 

Logan v. Fairfax County Dep't of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 

128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991). The trial courts "'are vested 

with broad discretion in making the decisions necessary to guard 

and to foster a child's best interests.'" Id. (citation 

omitted). On appeal, when the trial court has heard the evidence 

ore tenus, its judgment will not be disturbed unless plainly 

wrong or without evidence to support it. Id. 

 Under Code § 16.1-283(B), the Department of Human Services 

(DHS) must establish by clear and convincing evidence that (1) 

the neglect and abuse suffered by Ellie and Sara "presented a 

serious and substantial threat to [their] life, health or 

development;" and (2) that it is not "reasonably likely" that the 

conditions which caused the neglect and abuse can be 

"substantially corrected or eliminated" to allow the children to 

return to either parent in a "reasonable period of time." Code 

§ 16.1-283(B)(1) and (2). Proof that the parents suffer from a 

severe mental or emotional illness which creates "no reasonable 

expectation" that the parent will be able to "undertake 

responsibility for the care needed by the child" is prima facie 

evidence that the abusive or neglectful conditions have not been 

corrected. Code § 16.1-283(B)(2)(a). Similarly, proof that the 

parents have not responded to or followed through on appropriate 

rehabilitative efforts and services offered through DHS or other 

agencies is prima facie evidence that the abusive or neglectful 
 3 

conditions have not been corrected. Code § 16.1-283(B)(2)(c). 

 Donley and Price voluntarily entrusted Ellie and Sara to DHS 

in 1989. At that time, Ellie was two years old and Sara was ten 

months. Both girls were developmentally delayed. When Ellie 

entered foster care, she was extremely passive with a limited 

vocabulary and a reluctance to interact. Ellie's play themes 

revolved around being hurt and needing protection. Ellie would 

try to hurt herself, saying "Ellie is a monster; Ellie is bad." 

Ellie also displayed evidence of sexual abuse, including 

excessive masturbation. After four years of therapy and despite 

the continuity of a single foster home placement, Ellie's 

therapist testified Ellie "is a very traumatized child" who has 

been diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. 

 It is likely that Ellie will need therapy throughout her life. 

 Sara also shows signs associated with post-traumatic stress 

disorder, specifically dissociation. From the time Sara entered 

foster care, she had problems bonding with caregivers, which her 

therapist testified related back to problems arising when Sara 

was very young. Sara's problems were exacerbated by numerous 

foster care placements. Like Ellie, Sara displayed excessive 

masturbation. 

Mark U. Price

 I. Price argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction 

because no foster care plan seeking adoption rather than return 

to parents was filed prior to the filing of the petition to 
 4 

terminate Price's parental rights. Code § 16.1-283(A). The 

record demonstrates that the necessary foster care plan was filed 

on February 5, 1993 and the petition was filed on February 8, 

1993. Therefore, Price's argument is without merit. 

 II. Price also argues that there was insufficient evidence 

showing that he was not reasonably likely to substantially 

correct the conditions which led to his daughters' foster care 

placement. Price disputes at length and in detail the 

sufficiency of the testimony presented by the DHS witnesses. 

However, the trial judge who heard the evidence was entitled to 

determine the credibility of the witnesses. Bridgeman v. 

Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 523, 528, 351 S.E.2d 598, 601 (1986). 

Competent and credible evidence indicated that Price had been a 

physically and emotionally abusive husband and father and that he 

refused to accept responsibility for any wrongdoing on his part. 

 Dr. Sahni had counseled Price extensively between 1990 

through early 1993 and testified that Price was not capable of 

parenting the girls. Dr. Sahni had worked with Price and Sara 

and knew Sara had special needs which Price was not able to 

address. Dr. Sahni also spoke directly with Ellie's therapist. 

Dr. Sahni admitted that Price expressed hostility towards Ellie 

in connection with a specific allegation of sexual abuse, which 

Price initially denied, then explained away as merely 

misconstrued. Price also claimed that he was the victim of the 

physical violence between him and his wife. 
 5 

 Donald Soeken testified on Price's behalf. Soeken testified 

that he had had about thirty face-to-face counseling sessions 

with Price in 1987, a few in 1988, and none since that time. Any 

information Soeken had concerning Price after that time came 

through telephone conversations. Soeken supported Price's 

characterizations of himself as a victim who was "blackballed," 

"framed," and the victim of bad legal and medical advice. 

However, Soeken's credibility was undercut by his demonstrated 

lack of knowledge of a number of Price's criminal convictions. 

 Donley testified concerning the abusive conditions of 

marriage, as well as her belief that Price had, in fact, sexually 

abused his daughter. Ellie's foster mother described numerous 

specific incidents of highly sexualized behavior by Ellie, 

including some attributed by Ellie to "Daddy Mark." Dr. Sahni 

indicated Price was suspicious of others, tended to blame others, 

and had trouble accepting criticism. Price's own testimony, when 

juxtaposed against the testimony of Dr. Sahni, the foster 

parents, Price's ex-wife, and the workers with DHS, demonstrated 

Price's inability to accept responsibility for his own actions. 

Therefore, there was substantial, credible testimony presented to 

the trial court to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence 

the abusive or neglectful conditions which caused the girls to be 

placed in foster care had not been substantially corrected or 

eliminated to allow the girls' safe return to Price. 

 III. Finally, Price argues that the DHS failed to "exercise 
 6 

 

reasonable efforts to remedy the conditions" leading to his 

children's foster care placement. Through DHS and other 

agencies, Price and Donley were provided with marital and 

individual counseling, parenting classes, housing assistance, 

transportation, and job placement referrals. While Price was 

prohibited from visiting with Ellie following the allegations of 

sexual abuse and Price's resulting hostility towards Ellie, DHS 

facilitated regular visits with Sara. DHS worked to return the 

girls home for several years before changing the goal to 

adoption. 

 There was sufficient credible evidence for the trial court 

to find that DHS had provided reasonable and appropriate services 

designed to eliminate the conditions which led to the foster care 

placement. 

Linda L. Donley

 I. Donley argues that there was no evidence that she 

neglected or abused her children after her divorce from Price.1

 

However, DHS was not required to demonstrate incidents of abuse 

by Donley while the children were in foster care. Instead, DHS 

was required to show that the abusive or neglectful conditions 

which led to the children's initial foster care placement had not 

been and could not be substantially corrected or eliminated 

within a reasonable period of time. 

 1Donley also refutes an incident allegedly described by 

Sara's therapist in testimony before the district court. No such 

incident was described in trial before the circuit court and thus 

it is not part of the record before us. 
 7 

 Several witnesses testified that Donley's ability to parent 

did not improve despite her divorce from Price in 1992. Donley 

faced issues of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. 

She was unable to set appropriate limits on the girls' behavior 

during visitations. During the time when DHS was working towards 

returning the girls to Donley, Ellie's foster mother noted that 

Donley returned Ellie several hours earlier than required or 

indicated she did not want the girls because she was not feeling 

well. 

 DHS presented prima facie evidence demonstrating that the 

abusive or neglectful conditions could not be substantially 

corrected so as to allow the children's safe return within a 

reasonable period of time. 

 II. Donley contends that her therapist, Dr. Firth, was not 

competent to testify about Donley's ability to parent her two 

daughters because Dr. Firth had never seen the children or seen 

Donley interact with them. Dr. Firth had seen Donley in therapy 

for several years. Based upon her knowledge of Donley, Dr. Firth 

admitted that Donley did not qualify as an exceptional parent 

"[n]ot for lack of trying, but for the issues that she was still 

struggling with within herself to resolve in therapy." 

 The evidence was overwhelming that the girls had extensive 

needs requiring exceptional parenting skills. Even if Dr. Firth 

was not qualified to opine about Donley's ability to parent these 

children based upon actual observation, Dr. Firth was qualified 
 8 

to testify about Donley's abilities to parent children with 

exceptional needs. Furthermore, Donley raised no objections to 

Dr. Firth's competency to render an opinion on Donley's ability 

to parent her daughters. Therefore, Donley has not demonstrated 

that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting Dr. 

Firth's opinion testimony. 

 III. Donley admitted that her daughters have special needs 

and testified that she was prepared to parent the girls. She had 

gotten out of an abusive marriage and had worked through the 

related battered woman syndrome issues. Donley admitted that she 

is hampered physically because of her weight, but testified that 

she was exercising regularly. However, Dr. Firth testified that, 

while Donley had made progress, Donley still faced substantial 

issues which would require several more years of therapy. Donley 

admitted that she was not completely recovered. 

 The evidence demonstrates that Donley had taken steps to 

improve the conditions which led to her children's foster care 

placement. Nevertheless, we cannot say the trial court erred in 

finding that the best interests of the girls required the 

termination of Donley's parental rights. Donley's most recent 

attempt to parent the girls was marred by Donley's anger and 

frustration. Even if Donley's version of the "tying" incident 

was accepted, Donley admitted she angrily threatened to tie Sara 

to a bed when Sara would not sleep. Donley also returned the 

girls earlier than necessary, or waived chances to be with the 
 9 

girls. DHS's attempts to return the girls to Donley fell apart 

through Donley's inability to deal effectively with normal 

parenting responsibilities. 

 Moreover, it is not in the girls' best interests to remain 

in foster care until Donley is finally able to provide the 

necessary parenting. "It is clearly not in the best interests of 

a child to spend a lengthy period of time waiting to find out 

when, or even if, a parent will be capable of resuming [her] 

responsibilities." Kaywood v. Dep't of Social Servs., 10 Va. 

App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1990). 

 Already, the girls have been in foster care for nearly six 

years. Ellie's therapist testified that Ellie has bonded with 

her foster parents, that she loves them and indicates she is 

happy with them. Ellie needs the "stability and consistency" 

which she has with her foster parents, who have demonstrated 

their ability to work with the therapist consistently. 

Specifically, the therapist offered the following opinion: 

 If Ellie were to be taken from their home 

now, it's my opinion that she would be at 

risk to hurt others, hurt herself in very 

aggressive behaviors, and/or to withdraw from 

the world and become lost in a fantasy world, 

to lose her trust in the world and the safety 

and security of it. 

The therapist also noted that Ellie's play moved past the need 

for security at the same time Ellie's visits with Donley stopped. 

 In her current foster home placement, Sara has established a 

close bond with her foster mother. Sara shows signs of both 
 10 

psychological and physiological improvement and maturity. Sara's 

therapist testified that if the bond with Sara's current foster 

parents was broken, 

 I don't know how this child would ever 

comprehend that it really had nothing to do 

with her, and that people were really looking 

after her needs. Because it certainly would 

make her very, very despairing and despondent 

internally, and I don't know how that would 

affect her development. 

The therapist noted that Sara "needs to be where adults could put 

her needs first, where they can cater to that and then offer 

appropriate limits and boundaries to help her continue to grow." 

 DHS presented clear and convincing evidence to demonstrate 

that it was in the best interests of these children to terminate 

the parental rights of Price and Donley. The trial court's 

decision was not plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. 

 Accordingly, that decision is summarily affirmed. 

 Affirmed.