COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judg es Willis, Fran k and Clements

MARVIN LEE CARMON MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 00 36-01-2 PER CURIAM MAY 8, 2001 RICHMOND DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND Randall G. Jo hnson, Judge (Richard G. White, Jr., on brief), for appellant. (Evelyn B. Meese, Assist ant City Attorn ey; 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 th e decision of the circuit court terminating his residu al parental righ ts in his son, Daizhon Carmon. On appeal, father conten ds that the trial court erred in finding that the Richmond Department of Social Services (Department) investig ated all reasonable options for placing Daizhon with an immediate rela tive prior to terminating his parental rights. Father asks that the judgme nt of the trial court be reversed and his pa rental rights restored . Upon reviewing the record and briefs of th e parties, we co nclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily af firm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.On appeal, we view the evidence and all the re asonable inferences in th e 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 plac ed in foster care in March 1996 when he was ten months old. Si nce that time he ha s resided with his prospective ad optive parents. Daizho n was born fo ur months premature and spen t ten months in the hospital. He continues to have serious medical conditions requiring specialized equipment and care. While Daiz hon was hospitalized, his fo ster parents learned the skills necessary to operate th e equipment and provide sufficient care. Father testified that duri ng Daizhon's stay in the hospital he visited the child once and admitted that he did not acquire the sk ills necessary to care for Daizhon. Yolanda Guthrie, a hospital social work er, testified th at she alerted father to the fact that she had cont acted Child Protective Services and that she ex pected Daizhon to go into foster care. Father admitted that he had not pr ovided hospit al personnel with the names of rela tives who could provide care for Daizhon at the time he visi ted the child. Father was in carcerated in December 1996, and is serving a fifty- seven year sent ence. Early in his incarcerat ion, father spok e with his mother once about her caring for Daizhon. Later, through counsel, father provided the Department with th e names of four relatives (two au nts, an uncle,

- 2 -and his mother), as potential rela tive placements. The Department was unable to loca te either aunt. Father's uncle has di sabilities of his own and was un able to consider ca ring for Daizhon. Father's mother is ra ising two of her gran dchildren an d stated that she was unwilling to raise an other. The Department filed a peti tion to termin ate father's residual parental rights , alleging that he ha d failed to maintain continuing contact with Daizhon and th at he had been unwilling or unable to substa ntially remedy the conditio ns which led to Daizhon being placed in foster care. Code § 16 .1-283(C). After the juvenile and domestic relations dist rict court he ard the case, father appealed to th e circuit court. On November 14, 2000, the circuit court en tered an order terminat ing 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 -