COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Elder and Overton 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

S. G., A MINOR, BY 

 J. PAUL WALLA, GUARDIAN AD LITEM

 OPINION BY 

v. Record No. 2020-96-4 JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR. 

 AUGUST 5, 1997 

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

 SOCIAL SERVICES, ET AL. 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY 

LeRoy F. Millette, Jr., Judge 

 Joseph W. Kaestner (J. Paul Walla; Ashton, 

Walla & Associates, P.C., on brief), for 

appellant. 

 Megan E. Kelly, Assistant County Attorney 

(Sharon E. Pandak, County Attorney; Michelle 

R. Robl, Assistant County Attorney, on 

brief), for appellee Prince William County 

Department of Social Services. 

 No brief or argument for remaining appellees. 

 A judge of the juvenile and domestic relations district 

court ordered the Prince William County Department of Social 

Services to provide treatment in a residential facility for S.G., 

a minor in the custody of Social Services. Following an appeal 

by Social Services, a circuit court judge ruled that the juvenile 

court judge lacked authority to order that treatment because 

Social Services had the sole statutory authority to determine the 

minor's placement. By her guardian ad litem, the minor contends 

in this appeal that the juvenile court judge had the authority to 

order treatment. We agree and reverse the circuit court judge's 

order. 
 -2- 

 I. 

 The minor was brought before the juvenile court for 

violating the terms of her probation.1

 A juvenile court judge 

ruled that the minor had violated the terms of her probation and 

ordered that (1) Prince William County Community Services examine 

the minor and treat her if necessary, (2) Prince William County 

Department of Social Services (Social Services) prepare an 

assessment of the minor by October 5, 1995, and (3) the probation 

office refer the case to a Family Assessment and Planning Team 

(FAPT) to complete a report by October 5, 1995.2

 

 After that order was entered, the minor, by her guardian ad

litem, moved the juvenile court judge to transfer legal custody 

of the minor to Social Services. Before the scheduled hearing on 

 

 1Although the minor asserts on brief that she initially was 

brought into juvenile court "as a result of a routine Child in 

Need of Supervision [CHINS] . . . petition filed . . . when school 

authorities reported her as truant," see Code § 16.1-278.5, the 

record does not contain the initial petition. Evidence in the 

record does indicate, however, that this was a CHINS proceeding. 

See infra note 3. 

 2

FAPTs are authorized to "assess the strengths and needs of 

troubled youths and families . . . and determine the complement of 

services required to meet these unique needs." Code § 2.1-754. 

See generally Code §§ 2.1-745 to 2.1-759.1. 

 A juvenile court judge is required, upon finding that a child 

is in need of supervision, see infra note 3, to have the child's 

needs evaluated. See Code § 16.1-278.5(A). The judge may have 

the FAPT perform this evaluation. See id.; see also Fauquier Co. 

Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Robinson, 20 Va. App. 142, 151-52, 455 

S.E.2d 734, 739 (1995) (stating that Code § 16.1-278(A) authorizes 

courts "to compel the FAPT . . . to provide any necessary 

services"); Code § 2.1-757(D). Thus, the juvenile court judge's 

order directing the probation office to refer the case to a FAPT 

was authorized by law. 
 -3- 

October 5, 1995, the FAPT issued a report recommending that the 

minor, her mother, and her stepfather attend counseling and that 

the minor be released from probation. After the October 5, 1995 

hearing, the juvenile court judge returned the minor to her 

mother's custody, released the minor from probation, and ordered 

the minor, her mother, and her stepfather to participate in 

counseling. 

 Shortly after the minor was returned to her mother's 

custody, the minor ran away from home and did not attend school. 

 The juvenile court judge then placed the minor in the legal 

custody of Social Services and indicated that this was done "[a]s 

a partial disposition." The judge made the findings that 

"reasonable efforts . . . ha[d] been made . . . to prevent 

removal and that continued placement in the home would be 

contrary to the welfare of the child."3

 See Code 

 

 3The motion previously filed by the guardian ad litem sought a 

change of custody pursuant to Code § 16.1-278.8, the provision for 

delinquent juveniles. When the judge eventually transferred 

custody to Social Services, the judge did not set forth the 

provision under which he was proceeding. However, the foster care 

service plan, issued after custody was transferred to Social 

Services, lists "CHINS" as the minor's "Custody Status." "CHINS" 

is an abbreviation for "child in need of supervision" or "child in 

need of services." At oral argument, Social Services agreed that 

this proceeding was initiated by a CHINS petition. Accordingly, 

we conclude that the juvenile court judge acted pursuant to Code § 

16.1-278.5(B)(1) ("Child in need of supervision") (authorizing the 

juvenile court judge to enter any order authorized in Code § 16.1-

278.4 ("Child in need of services")). 

 The judge's reference to the minor as a "child," rather than 

a "juvenile," lends additional support to our conclusion that the 

trial judge was treating the minor as a child in need of 

supervision or services and not as a juvenile. Compare Code 

§ 16.1-278.4(6)(c) ("Any order . . . transferring legal custody of 
 -4- 

§ 16.1-278.4(6)(c). 

 As required by Code § 16.1-281, Social Services filed with 

the juvenile court a foster care service plan. The juvenile 

court judge approved the plan. After that approval, Social 

Services placed the minor at the home of her paternal 

grandparents. 

 On review of the minor's case, the juvenile court judge 

ordered the FAPT to reevaluate the minor's status and issue a new 

report. The FAPT issued a report which recommended that 

treatment for the minor "be explored" at a therapeutic foster 

home or a residential treatment facility. The FAPT report also 

noted "[s]ome concerns . . . regarding the safety and 

appropriateness of [the minor's] grandparent's home" and 

recommended that Social Services determine whether the home was a 

"safe environment." The minor, by her guardian ad litem, moved 

the juvenile court judge to enter an order requiring treatment of 

the minor in a residential treatment facility. After hearing the 

arguments of counsel, the juvenile court judge entered an order 

providing, in relevant part, the following: 

 

a child to . . . [S]ocial [S]ervices as provided in this 

subdivision shall be entered only upon a finding . . . that 

reasonable efforts have been made to prevent removal and . . . 

continued placement in the home would be contrary to the welfare 

of the child . . . .") (emphasis added), with Code 

§ 16.1-278.8(13)(c) ("Any order . . . transferring legal custody 

of a juvenile to . . . [S]ocial [S]ervices as provided in this 

subdivision shall be entered only upon a finding . . . that 

reasonable efforts have been made to prevent removal and . . . 

continued placement in the home would be contrary to the welfare 

of the juvenile . . . .") (emphasis added). 
 -5- 

 [T]he Court having received the [FAPT] 

recommendations of 19 March 1996, it 

appearing to the Court that the best interest 

of the [minor] would be served by placing her 
 -6- 

 

 in a therapeutic foster home . . . it is 

 . . . DECREED that: 

 1. [Social Services] shall arrange for the 

placement of . . . [the minor] in a 

Therapeutic Foster Home through United 

Methodist Family Services (or its 

equivalent); and, 

 2. If [Social Services] cannot place . . . 

[the minor] in a Therapeutic Foster Home 

through United Methodist Family Services (or 

its equivalent), [Social Services] shall 

arrange for her placement in a[n] appropriate 

residential facility to be approved by this 

Court prior to the Court's next review 

 date . . . . 

 Social Services appealed the order to the circuit court and 

filed a demurrer, asserting that the juvenile court judge was 

without jurisdiction or authority to enter the order. The 

circuit court judge sustained the demurrer "on the [ground] that 

as long as custody remains with [Social Services], Code 

§ 16.1-278.8(13)(c) places authority for placement with [Social 

Services]."4

 The circuit court judge reversed the order. 

 II. 

 The issue on appeal is whether a juvenile court judge can 

order Social Services to place a minor in a facility for 

treatment when custody of the child has been granted to Social 

Services pursuant to Code § 16.1-278.4(6)(c).5

 In pertinent 

 4The provision of Code § 16.1-278.8(13)(c) relied upon by the 

circuit court judge is also contained in Code § 16.1-278.4(6)(c). 

 Thus, our conclusion that the juvenile court judge proceeded 

under Code § 16.1-278.4(6)(c) does not affect the circuit court 

judge's reasoning. 

 5The resolution of this issue is the same under Code 

§ 16.1-238.8(13)(c). See supra note 4. 
 -7- 

part, Code § 16.1-278.4 provides as follows: 

 If a child is found to be in need of 

services, the juvenile court or the circuit 

court may make any of the following orders of 

disposition for the supervision, care and 

rehabilitation of the child: 

 * * * * * * * 

 6. Transfer legal custody to any of the 

following: 

 * * * * * * * 

 c. The local board of public welfare or 

social services of the county or city in 

which the court has jurisdiction . . . . The 

board to which the child is committed shall 

have the final authority to determine the 

appropriate placement for the child. 

(Emphasis added). Social Services argues, and the circuit court 

judge agreed, that because Social Services has "final authority 

to determine the appropriate placement for the child," the 

juvenile court judge lacked the power to enter the order. 

 The juvenile court judge based his authority to enter the 

order on Code §§ 2.1-757 and 16.1-281. The order granting the 

minor's motion stated that the minor sought "(1) pursuant to 

[Code §] 2.1-757 E. . . . , an Order placing [the minor] in an 

appropriate residential treatment facility . . . and (2) pursuant 

to [Code §] 16.1-281 E., a review of [the minor's] present living 

circumstances." 

 Preliminarily, we note that Code § 2.1-757 establishes a 

statutory funding mechanism for the Comprehensive Services Act 

for At-Risk Youth and Families (CSA). See Code §§ 2.1-745 to 
 -8- 

2.1-759.1. In addition to providing funding, Code § 2.1-757(E) 

provides the juvenile court with the following power: 

 In any matter properly before a court wherein 

the [FAPT] has recommended a level of 

treatment and services needed by the child 

and family, the court shall consider the 

recommendations of the [FAPT]. However, the 

court may make such other disposition as is 

authorized or required by law, and services 

ordered pursuant to such disposition shall 

qualify for funding under this section. 

The purpose of that section is to authorize funding for 

placements ordered by a judge in a proper case even when the 

judge elects not to follow the FAPT's recommendation. Cf.

Fauquier Co. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Robinson, 20 Va. App. 142, 

154, 455 S.E.2d 734, 740 (1995). By its express terms, Code 

§ 2.1-757(E) requires that the "matter [be] properly before a 

court" and authorizes funding only for dispositions that are 

"authorized or required by law." Thus, the juvenile court judge 

could rely on Code § 2.1-757 as authority for his disposition if 

the matter involving the minor was properly before the judge. 

 The other provision the juvenile court judge relied upon, 

Code § 16.1-281, provides in pertinent part as follows: 

 A. In any case in which . . . legal custody 

of a child is given to . . . [S]ocial 

[S]ervices . . . , [Social Services] . . . or 

the . . . [FAPT] established pursuant to 

[Code] § 2.1-753 shall prepare a foster care 

plan for such child . . . . [Social 

Services] . . . shall file the plan with the 

juvenile . . . court within sixty days 

following the transfer of custody . . . . 

 * * * * * * * 

 C. A copy of the entire foster care plan 
 -9- 

shall be sent by the court to the attorney 

for the child, the child's parents or any 

other person standing in loco parentis at the 

time . . . [Social Services] obtained custody 

. . . . Any party receiving a copy of the 

plan may petition the court for a review of 

the plan. 

 * * * * * * * 

 E. Nothing in this section shall limit the 

authority of the juvenile [court] judge or 

the staff of the juvenile court, upon order 

of the judge, to review the status of 

children in the custody of . . . [S]ocial 

[S]ervices . . . on its own motion. 

 The minor argues that the power "to review the status of 

children" set forth in subsection E granted the juvenile court 

judge the authority to consider the FAPT report and order Social 

Services to obtain treatment for the minor in a residential 

treatment facility. Social Services argues that the juvenile 

court judge divested himself of that authority when he granted 

Social Services legal custody of the minor under Code 

§ 16.1-278.4(6)(c), which states that Social Services "shall have 

the final authority to determine the appropriate placement." 

 We hold that the juvenile court judge retained the authority 

to "review the status" of the minor even after she was placed in 

the custody of Social Services. Code § 16.1-281(E) expressly 

states that children in the custody of Social Services are those 

the juvenile court judge can review pursuant to that section. 

See id. (giving the juvenile court judge the power "to review the 

status of children in the custody of local boards of . . . social 

services"). 
 -10- 

 Contrary to the argument of Social Services, Code 

§ 16.1-278.4(6)(c) does not mandate a different result. The 

statement that "[t]he [local] board [of social services] to which 

the child is committed shall have the final authority to 

determine the appropriate placement for the child," Code § 16.1-

278.4(6)(c), was intended to give Social Services the power to 

override the wishes or recommendations of the child's parents, 

the FAPT, or any other interested party. That section was not 

intended to divest the juvenile court judge of power to review 

the status of the minor. 

 Social Services argues that allowing the juvenile court 

judge to review its placement decisions would unduly interfere 

with its operations and thereby undermine the ability of Social 

Services to provide services to children. However persuasive 

that argument may be, nothing in the Code indicates an intent by 

the General Assembly to prevent the juvenile courts from 

reviewing the foster care decisions of Social Services. Rather, 

Code § 16.1-281 requires Social Services or the FAPT to file a 

foster care plan with the juvenile court within sixty days of 

receiving custody of the child. See Code § 16.1-281(A). The 

plan must contain the detailed information required by Code 

§ 16.1-281(B). Thereafter, any interested party may petition the 

juvenile court for a review of the plan and the juvenile court 

judge may revise the plan. See Code § 16.1-281(C). Moreover, 

under Code § 16.1-281(E), the juvenile court judge may, on the 
 -11- 

judge's own motion, "review the status" of the child. Thus, the 

scope of the judge's power to oversee the provision of treatment 

and care to a particular child is not limited to a review of the 

plan submitted by Social Services or the FAPT. The General 

Assembly clearly intended to provide the juvenile courts, under 

Code § 16.2-281, broad authority to oversee the status of 

children in the custody of Social Services. 

 "Statutes must be construed consistently with each other and 

so as to reasonably and logically effectuate their intended 

purpose." Nelson v. County of Henrico, 10 Va. App. 558, 561, 393 

S.E.2d 644, 646 (1990). We cannot conclude that in Code 

§ 16.1-278.4(6)(c), the General Assembly intended to divest the 

juvenile court of the authority it granted to the juvenile court 

in Code § 16.1-281. Rather, we hold that the General Assembly 

intended to provide that an order granting an agency custody of a 

child gives that agency the power, as against the child's 

parents, relatives, and other interested parties, to determine 

appropriate placements for that child. The General Assembly did 

not intend to prohibit the juvenile court from exercising the 

authority granted to it in Code § 16.1-281. 

 Accordingly, we hold that the juvenile court judge had the 

authority to enter the decree ordering Social Services to provide 

treatment for the minor in a residential treatment facility.6 

 

 6Social Services argues on brief that the FAPT was an essential 

party to the proceedings. However, Social Services lacks standing 

to raise the failure to include another party. Moreover, Social 

Services was named as a party and properly received notice of 
 -12- 

The circuit court order reversing that decree was in error. We, 

therefore, reverse the order and remand the case to the circuit 

court for an order consistent with this opinion. 

 Reversed. 

 

these proceedings. Accordingly, we will not address this 

contention.