COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Frank, Clements and Senior Judge Bray 

BONITA HANSBERRY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record Nos. 0117-03-2 through PER CURIAM 

 0120-03-2 JUNE 17, 2003 

 

CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT 

 OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 

Joseph F. Spinella, Judge Designate 

 (Richard A. Davis, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Allyson Manson-Davies, Assistant City 

Attorney, on brief), for appellee. 

 In four separately filed and numbered appeals, Bonita 

Hansberry (mother) appeals the decision of the circuit court 

terminating her parental rights to four of her children: Dashad 

Hansberry (Rec. No. 0117-03-2); Rashad Hansberry (Rec. No. 

0118-03-2); China Hansberry (Rec. No. 0119-03-2); and Kierra 

Hansberry (Rec. No. 0120-03-2). She contends the evidence was 

insufficient to support the terminations under subsections (B) 

or (C) of Code § 16.1-283. Upon reviewing the record and briefs 

of the parties, we conclude that these appeals are without merit. 

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decisions of the trial court. 

Rule 5A:27. 

 

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

designated for publication.
BACKGROUND

 On appeal, we view the evidence and all the reasonable 

inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to appellee as 

the party prevailing below. McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App. 

248, 250, 391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990). So viewed, the evidence 

showed that during a course of time, the Charlottesville 

Department of Social Services (CDSS) removed four of appellant's 

children from her home and placed them in foster care. 

The Twins: Rashad and Dashad

 On April 21, 2000, three-month-old Rashad was taken to UVA 

Hospital after a "Child Health Partnership home visitor" observed 

bruising on Rashad's face. Mother said she was not present during 

the injury, but she suspected that China, her three-year-old 

daughter, was in the crib with Rashad and likely caused the injury 

by jumping on him. A CDSS worker recalled that mother tried to 

avoid treatment and remove Rashad from the hospital, and she was 

reluctant to cooperate with hospital staff. Rashad was released 

from the hospital on April 22, 2000. On May 16, 2000, a pediatric 

specialist referred Rashad "to an early infant early intervention 

program, Babies Can't Wait, for developmental delays." Records 

showed that Rashad will also need "physical, occupational, speech 

therapy and follow-up care with opthamology due to facial bruising 

on 4-21-00." 

 CDSS prepared a foster care service plan for Rashad on June 

1, 2000, with a goal of "Return Home" and a target date of 

- 2 -
November 25, 2000. In order to achieve the goal of having 

Rashad returned home, mother was required to "create a safe, 

stable, maximally supervised home for Rashad and his twin 

brother." She was required under the foster care service plan 

to "cooperate fully in recommended services," participate in a 

substance abuse evaluation, "follow-through with individual 

counseling," "maintain stable employment," "participate in 

behavorial intervention services" arranged by CDSS for China who 

may pose a threat to the younger children, comply with "further 

prevention services offered through Family Preservation 

Services," "enroll and successfully complete a parenting 

education class" by September 2000, provide CDSS with written 

documentation of successful completion and attendance in such a 

class, maintain contact with the foster care social worker at 

least once a month to discuss her case and arrange with CDSS in 

advance a visitation schedule. 

 On April 24, 2000, CDSS took custody of Dashad, Rashad's 

twin brother. CDSS alleged that Dashad "is at risk of being 

abused and neglected by his mother who has previously been 

adjudicated as having abused and neglected another child in her 

care." Dashad's June 1, 2000 foster care service plan described 

a home visit by a CDSS worker at which the worker saw China hit 

Dashad repeatedly on the head. The worker noted that Kierra, 

who was four years old at the time, fed Dashad. As with Rashad, 

CDSS offered services to mother to help improve the safety and 

- 3 -
supervision of the children in her home, including childcare 

services and in-home counseling. Dashad's service plan required 

that he receive "the same services as his brother Rashad and 

. . . he will also require services through Babies Can't Wait, 

physical, occupational and speech therapy." Mother was directed 

to comply with the same requirements as included in Rashad's 

foster care plan. Dashad was placed with the same foster care 

family as Rashad. 

 The record showed that mother had "two other children in 

foster care" prior to Rashad and Dashad's removal. "Allan, age 

8, is currently receiving services from a children's residential 

facility, and Octavius, age 6, is currently in permanent foster 

care." At the time of Dashad's removal, mother "refused any 

further prevention services for Kierra and China against CDSS' 

strong encouragement for her to do so." 

 On June 16, 2000, the juvenile court found that Rashad and 

Dashad were neglected, and it directed CDSS to place them in 

foster care. On June 28, 2000, the juvenile court found that 

"[r]easonable efforts have been made" by CDSS "to reunite [each] 

child with his" parent, and it approved the foster care plans, 

adding the following conditions: (1) mother will "successfully 

work with a parenting 'coach' or other similar, one-on-one 

parenting skills counsel[or];" (2) mother will undergo a 

psychological evaluation; and (3) mother "will cooperate with 

CDSS in the provision of reasonable services or programs 

- 4 -
designed to remedy the conditions that led to foster care" 

placement. 

 On November 15, 2000, CDSS prepared foster care service 

plan reviews for the twins, with a program goal "Return Home" 

and a target date of June 2001 for goal achievement. 

 On April 12, 2001, CDSS recommended that the goal of 

returning the children home be changed to adoption. On June 1, 

2001, CDSS filed petitions to terminate mother's residual 

parental rights to the twins. 

 On June 29, 2001, the juvenile court terminated mother's 

residual parental rights based on Code § 16.1-283(B). Mother 

appealed to circuit court. 

The Girls: China and Kierra

 China and Kierra Hansberry were placed in CDSS care on 

February 28, 2001, pursuant to Child in Need of Services (CHINS) 

petitions and orders. Their initial April 12, 2001 foster care 

service plans had a program goal of "Return Home," with a target 

date of November 2001. The plans noted founded dispositions of 

inadequate supervision for burns occurring to both girls in 

1998. In addition, "[t]here have been three other founded 

dispositions made to various caretakers involving Ms. 

Hansberry's children including physical abuse in 1999, 

inadequate supervision in 1999, and sexual abuse in 1997." 

 Before her removal, China, then three years old, "exhibited 

aggressive and out of control behavior," to which mother was 

- 5 -
unable to set limits or boundaries. For example, China "will 

climb on all types of furniture if given the opportunity." 

During an early home visit, a CDSS worker recalled how China 

"climbed on cabinets, the stove and cars in the parking lot." 

Test results found China to be "developmentally delayed" with 

"significant delays in personal/social skills, adaptive skills 

and motor skills." "China is quick to hit others when she is 

frustrated," and she has a tendency to run out of the house by 

herself without supervision. The CDSS case worker reported that 

China "witnessed a knife incident between her mother and 

biological father." 

 Kierra received burns in 1998 that resulted in a "founded 

disposition of inadequate supervision." At the time of the 

April 2001 report, Kierra was five years old and attended 

kindergarten. Kierra exhibited signs of aggression and lacked 

self-control. She was suspended from kindergarten for kicking a 

guest at the school. During the school year, she spent 

weeknights "with different 'friends' in the neighborhood" and 

"most weekends with her paternal grandmother." In 1999, Kierra 

and her brother "witnessed a stabbing murder in her home." 

 China and Kierra were placed in the same therapeutic foster 

home. 

 Updated foster care service plan reviews prepared in 

October 2001, reported that mother "declined to attend" or 

- 6 -
participate in parenting classes and failed to maintain regular 

contact with CDSS and the social worker from People Places. 

 In the January 28, 2002 foster care service plan review, 

CDSS requested a change in goal from return home to adoption. 

 On April 18, 2002, CDSS petitioned for termination of 

mother's parental rights. The juvenile court terminated 

mother's parental rights to China and Kierra on May 14, 2002. 

Mother appealed to circuit court. 

Trial De Novo

 On July 26, 2002, the trial court conducted a trial de novo

on the four petitions to terminate mother's parental rights. 

The parties presented and the trial court admitted numerous 

documents and reports, including several foster care service 

plans and service plan reviews for each child, describing mother 

and the children at various times during CDSS's long-standing 

relationship with mother. The documents detailed the extensive 

services offered to mother and her children over a long period 

of time and the progress made by each party. 

 Dr. Jeffrey Aaron, a clinical psychologist, testified that 

he evaluated mother's emotional and cognitive functioning in 

August 2000. Mother told Dr. Aaron that she did not want to 

participate, but was doing so only because CDSS made her. From 

the outset, she "appeared angry and irritable and resistant." 

Mother "showed . . . a strong tendency to externalize blame and 

responsibility." Test results showed her to have a "full scale 

- 7 -
IQ" of 74, "which places her in the borderline range of 

cognitive functioning." Persons within that range exhibit 

"deficits in their ability to engage in a wide range of 

cognitive tasks, particularly those that require complex or 

abstract reasoning, inferences about relationships . . . and 

related tasks." Although persons functioning within the 

"borderline range" can "learn new skills and develop new 

abilities," Dr. Aaron opined that their "core deficits" such as 

an inability to "apply[] the learning to new situations, 

wouldn't be expected to change." Dr. Aaron noted that mother is 

"likely to be emotionally reactive and hostile and oppositional, 

particularly when under stress." This accounts for her having 

difficulty "trusting people, forming relationships, [and] making 

use of what other people could offer, in terms of providing 

assistance to her or her children." Dr. Aaron opined as 

follows: 

[Mother's] general pattern of emotional and 

personality functioning, her tendency to 

deny problems and externalize blame, her 

tendency to become hostile and emotionally 

reactive, and the cognitive deficits that 

I've described, all of these things 

together, in my opinion, make it unlikely 

that she would be able to adequately 

identify and respond to her children's needs 

and meet them. 

Based on his assessment, Dr. Aaron felt there was "a poor 

likelihood" that mother could or would effect a "positive 

change." Dr. Aaron believed mother might suffer from "chronic 

- 8 -
low grade depression" or "posttraumatic stress disorder." 

However, due to her proclivity for under-reporting and denying 

symptoms, he was unable to make any such diagnoses. 

 Carrie Lovette was qualified as an expert in clinical 

social work. In November 2000, CDSS referred mother to Lovette 

for weekly sessions to help her "learn parenting skills and to 

help her learn how to provide a safe environment for her 

children." Mother refused to acknowledge that she had anything 

to do with the children's removal or that her parenting skills 

were deficient, and she characterized the negative reports as 

"lies." Mother attended thirteen sessions and missed ten and 

currently "refuses to return to therapy." Her last session was 

on April 16, 2002. Despite mother's strong feelings for her 

children, Lovette opined that mother lacks "any capacity for 

empathy for her children's experience and she, again, doesn't 

feel that there were any problems in her parenting behaviors 

skills before." Mother's denials and refusals to accept help 

made it impossible for her to make any progress with therapy or 

to become a better parent. Lovette indicated concerns with 

mother's "rage and impulse control and honesty." 

 Robin Warner, a Child Protective Services (CPS) worker, was 

appointed to work with mother in April 2000 following Rashad's 

removal. Warner advised the trial court that mother received 

CDSS services in 1992 "for a variety of concerns at that time," 

such as mother's volatility and failure to provide appropriate 

- 9 -
care. Warner recalled a founded complaint for inadequate 

supervision in 1998 relating to an incident where Kierra and 

China received burns from a hot iron. At the time, mother could 

not explain how the girls got burned, so CDSS "added more 

services" and "additional goals" to improve mother's parenting, 

"her money management, [and] the hygiene of the girls." In 

January 1999, CDSS brought in "Children Youth and Family 

Services" in order to offer "intensive home services in 

[mother's] home in an effort to improve, really try to improve 

the environment for the children." Warner recalled two founded 

allegations against mother in January and February of 1999. The 

February 1999 incident involved the caretaker fleeing the 

residence and leaving China and Kierra alone after an occupant 

had been stabbed to death.1

 Warner recalled an April 2000 home visit with CDSS worker 

Susan Brumfield during which China went into the kitchen, 

climbed the stove and was on the burners, which were turned off 

at the time. Mother entered the kitchen, got her down and 

returned to Warner and Brumfield. Mother did not warn China of 

the danger or admonish her not to repeat the conduct. A short 

time later, China climbed onto the kitchen sink and turned on 

 1

 Both Lovette and Dr. Aaron recalled mother describing this 

incident in which mother discovered a murdered victim in the 

home at which she and the children were living. Despite 

mother's denial that the event affected her, Dr. Aaron opined 

that such an event could have caused or exacerbated "her social 

withdrawal and strong mistrust of others." 

- 10 -
the faucet. Mother got her down and brought her into the living 

room, where China proceeded to throw an apple at Brumfield and 

hit Dashad "on the head a number of times." Mother "took 

China's hand" while speaking with the CDSS workers, but she "did 

not discipline her." When Warner warned mother about China's 

aggressiveness towards Dashad, mother sloughed it off as 

jealousy. Warner related the many services provided to mother. 

A Family Preservation worker regularly visited and worked with 

mother in the home, a CASA worker was appointed and evaluations 

were done. Warner recalled, "We were really trying to try 

whatever we could to improve the situation, so that the girls 

could remain in the home and the boys, at some point, could be 

brought back." Despite "all of these services that we had put 

in, Ms. Hansberry continued to be resistant to the services." 

Mother either did not allow the family preservation worker into 

her residence or "she would be hostile" and not interact with 

the worker. Moreover, mother "was missing appointments," and 

she "wasn't making her individual therapy appointments with Ms. 

Lovette." Warner warned mother of the importance of cooperating 

with the service providers and wrote and provided to mother a 

list of things mother needed to do to keep the girls and get the 

twins back. Despite mother's initial agreement to cooperate, 

"[t]here was no change" in her participation, and concerns about 

the two girls persisted, and CPS "continued to get reports" 

regarding "concerns" about the children. 

- 11 -
 Brumfield, a foster care social worker, began working with 

mother and her children in October 1999, six months before 

Rashad's removal. At that time, there were already several 

service providers working with the mother, such as CHIP, CASA, 

CPS and Family Preservation Services. Brumfield recalled CDSS's 

"continuing concerns of the children needing to [be] 

supervised." After China and Kierra were placed in foster care, 

"People Places" became the therapeutic foster care agency 

contracted to work with mother and the girls. Counseling also 

continued, however, mother "refused to be involved in those 

services." Brumfield related how she and other CPS workers 

"tried to model appropriate parenting skills during visits with 

the children, so that [mother] could make use of those skills in 

the visits with the girls." 

 Brumfield discussed the various foster care plans she 

prepared, copies of which the trial court admitted. She 

explained that CDSS tried "to be very creative" with mother to 

try to get her to comply with the plans. She would revise the 

plan and change strategies to accommodate mother. To that end, 

she enlisted other facilitators to work with mother, such as a 

child consultant and a family consultant. 

 Mother visited the boys thirty-three times and missed 

appointments twenty-one times. At one point, Brumfield had to 

advise mother to provide advance notice or a doctor's excuse if 

- 12 -
she was sick so the foster parents would not have to needlessly 

transport the boys to a designated location. 

 Mother's "lack of progress with foster care plan[s]," 

caused CDSS to explore other options. No relatives came 

forward, so adoption became the only alternative. 

 The twins, who are now two years old, are "both 

developmentally delayed" and have "been identified [as 

requiring] early intervention services [as well as services] 

through the school system." Brumfield testified that the twins 

are doing well in foster care, and the foster care family that 

has had custody since April 2000 is interested in adopting them. 

 Both girls had behavorial and health problems before foster 

care placement. They are presently "doing very well" and have 

"made a lot of progress with their foster family." In addition 

to attending and benefiting from regular counseling and therapy 

sessions, "[t]hey've learned the basics of what it's like to 

have regular meals [and] a regular schedule. They've learned 

proper nutrition, sleep. Naps. They've both done incredibly 

well in school, despite where they were when they came into 

care." 

 Mother never completed a parenting class, nor did she stay 

in contact with her case worker and inform her as to employment 

or comply with the other requirements in the foster care service 

plans. Mother reported "in late January or February" of 2002 

that she was living with her father in Garrett Square, but 

- 13 -
Brumfield was not allowed access "to make an assessment." 

Brumfield averred that she revised and adjusted the foster care 

service plans in hopes of obtaining more participation and 

cooperation from mother. 

 Stephanie Bass is a family consultant with the agency 

"People Places." She was to "communicate and coordinate" the 

services and needs of all parties involved and monitor their 

progress. China and Kierra were placed with Bass's agency at 

the end of February, 2001. Barbara Gross was the initial family 

consultant, and Jason Holland was the child consultant. Bass 

replaced Gross in August 2001, however Holland remained 

involved. Mother was consistent in attending visits, however, 

mother was unable to safely and properly supervise the girls 

during visits. Bass and other support staff tried to teach 

mother how to discipline and provide time outs through modeling, 

but mother was never able to do so independently. Bass also 

recalled mother at times making inappropriate comments to the 

children. Despite CDSS's efforts, mother still cannot "address 

discipline or safety issues." Bass related that mother has 

changed her telephone number at least five times, making it 

difficult to reach her. 

 Barba Merriwether is the CASA volunteer for the children. 

She made many visits and observations at mother's home, the 

foster parents' homes and during visitation between mother and 

her children and prepared several reports for the juvenile court 

- 14 -
throughout the proceedings.2 Merriwether noted mother's 

inability to perceive or admit any deficiencies in her parenting 

skills and documented several instances where mother failed to 

discipline and control China. 

 In a May 2001 report, Merriwether opined "that a permanent 

home is in the best interest for the boys," who are thriving in 

the foster home. In her June 22, 2001 report, Merriwether 

provided the following summary and recommendation regarding the 

twins: 

 In working with Mrs. Hansberry for more 

than a year, she has not demonstrated that 

she is capable or willing to maintain a safe 

and nurturing home for her twin boys. Ms. 

Hansberry does not seem to appreciate the 

necessity that permanent, long term changes 

must take place. I do not believe she fully 

understands and comprehends the 

responsibility of caring for a child of any 

age. 

It is my opinion that an adoptive home 

is in the best interests for the boys. 

 The girls are doing very well in foster care also. 

Merriwether reported that the foster parents have provided 

structure and discipline, and both girls showed much progress 

socially and academically. They appeared well-behaved and 

happy. 

 2

 Three reports, dated June 23, 2000, May 7, 2001, and June 

22, 2001, related to the twins, Rashad and Dashad. Two reports 

dated November 7, 2001 and May 10, 2002, related to the girls, 

China and Kierra. 

- 15 -
 Merriwether experienced difficulty contacting mother or 

visiting with her to discuss the case. Merriwether reported in 

May 2002 that mother "is still unemployed." Merriwether noted 

that mother still "does not seem to appreciate or understand" 

what she must do, and she "has exhibited little ability or 

willingness to improve the situation." Thus, Merriwether 

recommended adoption. 

 In closing argument, the guardian ad litem advised the 

trial court that she has been guardian for these children for 

"almost four years."3 The guardian felt that mother "has done 

her best," however, her "hostility to . . . social services" and 

lack of cooperation prevented her from ameliorating the 

conditions that led to the removals. Thus, the guardian "cannot 

recommend that [the children] be returned to her." 

 In deciding to terminate mother's parental rights, the 

trial court made the following findings: 

It's quite clear to the Court that a plan 

was designed for the mother to correct the 

situations. And she was instructed on the 

plans. And in following the instructions, 

in a [span] of over a year, probably about 

two years, that she was not able to comply 

with the requirements of the plan. And, at 

the present time, she has no visible means 

of support, has no job, really has not 

indicated how she would take care of these 

children, four of them, and has offered no 

plan to the Court to show how she could do 

this in the future. I feel it's in the best 

 3

 On appeal, the guardian ad litem did not file a brief on 

behalf of the children in this case. 

- 16 -
interests of the children that they not be 

returned to her. 

 By order dated December 11, 2002, the trial court 

terminated mother's residual parental rights. 

ANALYSIS 

 On appeal, we will not disturb a trial court's findings 

unless they are plainly wrong or without evidentiary support. 

See Roanoke City Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Heide, 35 Va. App. 328, 

336, 544 S.E.2d 890, 894 (2001). 

 In closing argument at the July 26, 2002 de novo hearing, 

mother's attorney stated: "What needs to be shown here is 

whether or not [mother] has been able to remedy the conditions 

which led to these children coming into care in the first 

place." Continuing, mother's attorney argued: 

And she submits that either there was 

nothing to remedy in the first place or that 

she has done so, but she's able to take care 

of these kids. 

As to the girls, mother's attorney questioned the basis of 

removal as stated in the petition of 

July of 2000, relating to serious concerns 

about the safety and well-being of Kierra 

and her sister. That's what led to these 

girls coming into care. 

 And realistically, I think what – 

[mother] wants all four of the kids back, 

but I think her position is stronger with 

regard to the two girls. I think she can 

take care of those two girls. There's a 

question about them being removed in the 

first place. That is her position. With 

regard to the twins, the youngest, those are 

- 17 -
her children. Again, the removals arose out 

of an injury suffered by Rashad. We can't 

dispute that. It's reflected in the medical 

records. But it's ideology [sic] where it 

came from. It clearly remains unknown. And 

[mother] doesn't believe that it was 

occasion to anything [sic] due to her 

neglect or lack of care for the children. 

Similarly, Dashad, we think in purview [sic] 

is just a reaction. Social services had 

previously removed two of her kids already. 

And they were primed, locked and ready to go 

essentially for just about any reason to 

take these children. 

 On December 11, 2002, the trial court entered final orders 

in the four cases heard and argued on July 26, 2002. Mother's 

attorney endorsed each order, "Seen Objected To." 

 In her opening brief, mother contends the 

evidentiary record plainly shows that CDSS 

failed to make reasonable and appropriate 

efforts to provide medical, mental health or 

other rehabilitative services and support to 

the end that Ms. Hansberry could make 

additional substantial progress towards 

eliminating the Conditions. Such efforts 

are a condition precedent to the trial 

court's terminating [mother's] residual 

parental rights. [Mother] contends that 

[she] remedied substantially the Conditions 

and made substantial progress towards 

eliminating such Conditions. However, to 

the extent [mother] was unable to make more 

substantial progress, [mother] has good 

cause due to CDSS's failure to make 

reasonable and appropriate efforts to 

provide such services. 

 Mother never argued to the trial court that CDSS failed to 

make reasonable or appropriate efforts, nor did she contend 

below that there was good cause for her failure to follow 

through or respond to CDSS's rehabilitative efforts. 

- 18 -
 "[E]ndorsing a[n order] 'seen and objected to' does not 

preserve an issue for appeal unless the record further reveals 

that the issue was properly raised for consideration by the 

trial court." Konefal v. Konefal, 18 Va. App. 612, 615, 446 

S.E.2d 153, 155 (1994). "No ruling of the trial court . . . 

will be considered as a basis for reversal unless the objection 

was stated together with the grounds therefor at the time of the 

ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of 

Appeals to attain the ends of justice." Rule 5A:18. 

 Because mother filed no post-judgment pleadings raising the 

good cause defense, we are precluded from addressing that 

argument on appeal. See Rule 5A:18. Moreover, because the 

record contains abundant evidence to support the trial court's 

finding that CDSS made reasonable and appropriate efforts to 

provide services and because the record fails to contain 

sufficient, credible evidence establishing good cause for 

mother's failure to respond or follow through with those 

services, the record does not reflect any reason to invoke the 

good cause or ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18. 

 Therefore, the only issues argued and preserved by mother 

were those raised in her closing argument, namely, (1) there was 

insufficient evidence of harm or danger to remove the children 

in the first place; (2) there was nothing for mother to remedy; 

and/or (3) mother has remedied any such conditions and can now 

care for the children. The only issue raised at trial and 

- 19 -
argued in mother's brief is whether there was sufficient 

evidence that mother failed to follow through with services and 

remedy the situation requiring removal. Thus, we limit our 

analysis to that issue. 

Rashad and Dashad

The trial court terminated mother's parental rights to 

Rashad and Dashad pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B), which provides 

in pertinent part: 

The residual parental rights of a parent or 

parents of a child found by the court to be 

neglected or abused and placed in foster 

care as a result of (i) court commitment 

. . . may be terminated if the court finds, 

based upon clear and convincing evidence, 

that it is in the best interests of the 

child and 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 likely 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. In 

making this determination, the court shall 

take into consideration the efforts made to 

rehabilitate the parent or parents by any 

public or private social, medical, mental 

health or other rehabilitative agencies 

prior to the child's initial placement in 

foster care. 

 Viewed in the light most favorable to CDSS, clear and 

convincing evidence proved that: (1) the twins "were found by 

the court to be neglected or abused" and were placed into foster 

- 20 -
care pursuant to court commitment, Code § 16.1-283(B); (2) CDSS 

had, prior to the twins' placement in foster care, made efforts 

to rehabilitate mother, Code § 16.1-283(B)(2); (3) termination 

"is in the best interests of the child," Code § 16.1-283(B); (4) 

the "neglect or abuse suffered by such child presented a serious 

and substantial threat to his life, health or development," Code 

§ 16.1-283(B)(1); and (5) "[i]t is not reasonably likely that 

the conditions which resulted in such neglect or abuse can be 

substantially corrected or eliminated so as to allow the safe 

return to his parent or parents within a reasonable period of 

time," Code § 16.1-283(B)(2). That mother "without good cause, 

ha[d] not responded to or followed through with appropriate, 

available and reasonable rehabilitative efforts on the part of 

social, medical, mental health or other rehabilitative agencies 

designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent the neglect or abuse of 

the child," constituted prima facie evidence "of the conditions 

set forth in subdivision B 2." Code § 16.1-283(B)(2)(c). At 

the time of trial, the twins had been in foster care over two 

years. Not only was there a lack of evidence that mother 

substantially corrected or eliminated the conditions leading to 

foster care, but CDSS presented evidence that mother refused to 

acknowledge any deficiencies existed and appeared to thwart 

CDSS's attempts to provide services to remediate her parenting 

and supervisory skills. 

- 21 -
 CDSS presented sufficient clear and convincing evidence to 

support the trial court's findings and rulings. Moreover, 

mother did not rebut the prima facie case established by CDSS. 

Therefore, the evidentiary requirements of Code § 16.1-283(B)(2) 

had been met, and the trial court's findings and judgment were 

not plainly wrong or without evidence to support them. 

China and Kierra

 The trial court terminated mother's parental rights to 

China and Kierra pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C), which provides 

in pertinent part: 

The residual parental rights of a parent or 

parents of a child placed in foster care as 

a result of court commitment, . . . may be 

terminated if the court finds, based upon 

clear and convincing evidence, that it is in 

the best interests of the child and that: 

* * * * * * * 

 2. The parent or parents, without good 

cause, have been unwilling or unable within 

a reasonable period of time not to exceed 

twelve months from the date the child was 

placed in foster care to remedy 

substantially the conditions which led to or 

required continuation of the child's foster 

care placement, notwithstanding the 

reasonable and appropriate efforts of 

social, medical, mental health or other 

rehabilitative agencies to such end. Proof 

that the parent or parents, without good 

cause, have failed or been unable to make 

substantial progress towards elimination of 

the conditions which led to or required 

continuation of the child's foster care 

placement in accordance with their 

obligations under and within the time limits 

or goals set forth in a foster care plan 

filed with the court or any other plan 

- 22 -
jointly designed and agreed to by the parent 

or parents and a public or private social, 

medical, mental health or other 

rehabilitative agency shall constitute prima 

facie evidence of this condition. The court 

shall take into consideration the prior 

efforts of such agencies to rehabilitate the 

parent or parents prior to the placement of 

the child in foster care. 

 The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to CDSS, 

proved by clear and convincing evidence both (1) that CDSS made 

"reasonable and appropriate efforts" to help mother remedy the 

conditions "which led to or required continuation of the [China 

and Kierra's] foster care placement" and (2) that mother, 

"without good cause" was "unwilling or unable within a 

reasonable period of time not to exceed twelve months" from the 

date of placement in foster care failed "to substantially 

remedy" those conditions. Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). In reaching 

this conclusion, the trial court took "into consideration the 

prior efforts" of CDSS "to rehabilitate" mother. Id. 

 Pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), CDSS presented prima

facie evidence that mother "without good cause, ha[s] failed or 

been unable to make substantial progress towards elimination of 

the conditions which led to or required continuation of [China 

and Kierra's] foster care placement in accordance with [he]r 

obligations under and within the time limits or goals set forth 

in [the] foster care plan[s] filed with the court." Id. 

Moreover, mother did not rebut that prima facie evidence. 

Therefore, the evidentiary requirements of Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) 

- 23 -
had been met, and the trial court's findings and judgment were 

not plainly wrong or without evidence to support them. 

 Accordingly, the decisions of the trial court are summarily 

affirmed. 

Affirmed. 

- 24 -