COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Fr ank, Clements and Haley

DERRICK HORTON MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2076-05-1 PER CURIAM FEBRUARY 28, 2006 CITY OF HAMPTO N DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON Wilford Taylor, Jr., Judge (M. Woodrow Griffin, Jr., on brief), for appellant. (Lesa J. Yeatts, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence A. Martin, Guardian ad litem for the child; Coyle & Martin, on brief), for appellee.
Derrick Horton (father) appeals the trial court’ s order changing the goal of the permanency planning order for his daughter from “return to parent” to “adoption.” On appeal, father contends the trial court erred by changing the goal to adoption an d refusing to adopt the proposed concurrent goal of placement with relative. Upon reviewing the record and brie fs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affi rm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27. Background We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prev ailing party below and grant to it all reasonable inferences fair ly deducible therefrom. See Logan v. Fairfax County Dep’t of
Human Dev. , 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 462 (1991).

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - The child went into foster car e directly from the hospital afte r her birth in October 2003. Father was incarcerated at the time daughter was born and was incarce rated at the time of the June 7, 2005 hearing of this matter. Father has never provided support for daughter or attempted to contact her, although he had limited contact with several social workers. Mother visited daughter on occasion and brought a paternal relative to some of the visitations. Th e Court Report in the record states that the only rela tive to come forward and follow through with pursuing custody of daughter was the maternal gra ndmother, who resides in New York. After a home study, the Department of Social Serv ices denied placement of daughter wi th the maternal grandmother. The guardian ad litem opined that it was in daughter’s best in terest to be adopted. The trial court found that there was no relative with whom the child could be placed and changed th e goal of the permanency planning order to adoption. Analysis Proof by a preponderance of th e evidence is the appropriate standard in a case involving the modification of foster care plans pursuant to Code § 16.1-282. Padilla v. Norfolk Div. of Soc.
Servs. , 22 Va. App. 643, 645, 47 2 S.E.2d 648, 649 (1996). “When addressing matters concerning a child . . . the paramount cons ideration of a trial court is the child’s be st interests.” Logan , 13 Va. App. at 128, 409 S.E.2d at 463. “In matters of a child’s welfare, trial courts are vested with broad discretion in making the decisi ons necessary to guard and to foster a child’s be st interests.” Farley v. Farley , 9 Va. App. 326, 328, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990). On appeal, we presum e that the trial court “thoroughly weighed all the evidence, . . . and made its determination based on the child’s best interests.” Id. at 329, 387 S.E.2d at 796. Furthermore, “[w]here, as here, th e trial court heard the evidence ore tenus , its finding is entitled to great weight and will not be di sturbed on appeal unle ss plainly wrong or wi thout evidence to- 3 - support it.” Martin v. Pittsylv ania County Dep’t of Soc. Servs. , 3 Va. App. 15, 20 , 348 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1986). The record supports the trial court’s findings that there is no relativ e with whom daughter can be placed and the best interests of the child will be served by changing the permanency planning order goal to adoption. No re lative other than the maternal grandmother purs ued custody of daughter. In addition, father has never attempted to contact daughter and ha s not planned for her future in any way. “‘[P]ast actions and relatio nships over a meaningful period serve as good indicators of what the future may be expected to hold.’” Linkous v. Kingery , 10 Va. App. 45, 56, 390 S.E.2d 188, 194 (1990) (citatio n omitted). Furthermore, daughte r has been in foster care her entire life. “It is clearly not in th e best interests of a ch ild to spend a lengthy pe riod of time waiting to find out when, or even if, a parent will be ca pable of resuming his resp onsibilities.” Kaywood v. Halifax County Dep’ t of Soc. Servs. , 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1990). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the judgment. See Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.