COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Frank and Clements 

MARVIN LEE CARMON 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0036-01-2 PER CURIAM 

 MAY 8, 2001 

RICHMOND DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND 

Randall G. Johnson, Judge 

 (Richard G. White, Jr., on brief), for appellant. 

 (Evelyn B. Meese, Assistant City Attorney; Scott D. 

Cardani, guardian ad litem for the infant child, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 

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

for publication.

 Marvin Lee Carmon (father) appeals the decision of the 

circuit court terminating his residual parental rights in his son, 

Daizhon Carmon. On appeal, father contends that the trial court 

erred in finding that the Richmond Department of Social Services 

(Department) investigated all reasonable options for placing 

Daizhon with an immediate relative prior to terminating his 

parental rights. Father asks that the judgment of the trial court 

be reversed and his parental rights restored. Upon reviewing the 

record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is 

without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of 

the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. 
 On appeal, we view the evidence and all the reasonable 

inferences in the light most favorable to appellee as the party 

prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App. 248, 250, 

391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990). 

Background

 Daizhon was placed in foster care in March 1996 when he was 

ten months old. Since that time he has resided with his 

prospective adoptive parents. Daizhon was born four months 

premature and spent ten months in the hospital. He continues to 

have serious medical conditions requiring specialized equipment 

and care. While Daizhon was hospitalized, his foster parents 

learned the skills necessary to operate the equipment and provide 

sufficient care. Father testified that during Daizhon's stay in 

the hospital he visited the child once and admitted that he did 

not acquire the skills necessary to care for Daizhon. Yolanda 

Guthrie, a hospital social worker, testified that she alerted 

father to the fact that she had contacted Child Protective 

Services and that she expected Daizhon to go into foster care. 

 Father admitted that he had not provided hospital personnel 

with the names of relatives who could provide care for Daizhon at 

the time he visited the child. Father was incarcerated in 

December 1996, and is serving a fifty-seven year sentence. Early 

in his incarceration, father spoke with his mother once about her 

caring for Daizhon. Later, through counsel, father provided the 

Department with the names of four relatives (two aunts, an uncle, 

- 2 -
and his mother), as potential relative placements. The Department 

was unable to locate either aunt. Father's uncle has disabilities 

of his own and was unable to consider caring for Daizhon. 

Father's mother is raising two of her grandchildren and stated 

that she was unwilling to raise another. 

 The Department filed a petition to terminate father's 

residual parental rights, alleging that he had failed to maintain 

continuing contact with Daizhon and that he had been unwilling or 

unable to substantially remedy the conditions which led to Daizhon 

being placed in foster care. Code § 16.1-283(C). After the 

juvenile and domestic relations district court heard the case, 

father appealed to the circuit court. On November 14, 2000, the 

circuit court entered an order terminating father's residual 

parental rights. 

ANALYSIS 

 "When addressing matters concerning a child, including the 

termination of a parent's residual parental rights, the 

paramount 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). 

"In matters of a child's welfare, trial courts 

are vested with broad discretion in making the 

decisions necessary to guard and to foster a 

child's best interests." The trial court's 

judgment, "when based on evidence heard ore

tenus, will not be disturbed on appeal unless 

plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." 

Id. (citations omitted). 

- 3 -
 Father contends the trial court erred by finding that the 

Department satisfied its duty to explore potential relative 

placements for Daizhon prior to terminating his residual 

parental rights. 

 Code § 16.1-283(A) provides, in pertinent part, that before 

terminating parental rights, "the court shall give a 

consideration to granting custody to relatives of the child, 

including grandparents." "Before termination of parental rights 

by the court, the agency seeking termination has an affirmative 

duty to investigate all reasonable options for placement with 

immediate relatives." Sauer v. Franklin County Dep't of Soc. 

Servs., 18 Va. App. 769, 771, 446 S.E.2d 640, 641 (1994). 

However, the Department does not have a duty "to investigate the 

home of every relative of the children, however remote, as a 

potential placement." Id. The Department investigated several 

of father's relatives, all of whom were either unable or 

unwilling to serve as custodian of Daizhon. Additionally, the 

Department found that the maternal relatives identified by 

Daizhon's mother were similarly unsuitable. 

 The record supports the trial court's finding that the 

Department investigated all reasonable options for placing 

Daizhon with a relative. Accordingly, the decision of the 

circuit court is summarily affirmed. 

 Affirmed.

- 4 -