COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Kelsey and Senior Judge Hodges 

ALEXANDER GILES 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0445-03-2 PER CURIAM 

 JULY 15, 2003 

RICHMOND DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND 

Melvin R. Hughes, Jr., Judge 

 (Craig W. Sampson; Sampson Law Firm, PLC, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 (Sarah M. Denham, Assistant City Attorney; 

Rene S. Hicks, Guardian ad Litem for Hakeem 

Baker, on brief), for appellee. 

 Alexander Giles (father) appeals a decision of the trial 

court terminating his parental rights and approving a goal of 

adoption for Hakeem Baker (the child). On appeal, father argues 

that the trial court failed to adequately explore the possibility 

of placing the child with a relative pursuant to Code 

§ 16.1-283(A). 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. 

 

* 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 in the light most favorable to the Richmond Department 

of Social Services (RDSS) as the party prevailing below. See

McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App. 248, 250, 391 S.E.2d 344, 346 

(1990). 

 Father and Kelly Baker (mother) are the parents of the child. 

The child was born on August 19, 2001, at which time he tested 

positive for cocaine. He was immediately removed from the 

parents' care, and when he was two days old, he was placed in a 

foster home. He remains in that home. RDSS provided numerous 

services to the parents, but the parents did not comply with the 

services. 

 The goal of the first foster care plan was placement with 

relatives. In June 2002, RDSS filed a foster care plan with a 

goal of adoption. In July 2002, the juvenile and domestic 

relations district court approved the plan and terminated the 

parental rights of both parents. The circuit court also approved 

the plan with the goal of adoption and terminated the parental 

rights of father and mother. 

 At the trial court hearing, Bragail Williams, an employee of 

RDSS who worked with the family from August 2001 until January 

2002, testified that the parents identified the child's maternal 

grandmother as a possible relative to take custody of the child. 

Williams stated that RDSS investigated the grandmother and 

- 2 -
determined there were several child protective services (CPS) 

complaints filed against her in both Wisconsin and Virginia. In 

addition, one of her children had been in foster care for at least 

six years and she had been convicted of felony child neglect in 

Wisconsin. The maternal grandmother also had had several other 

children removed from her custody, two of whom "aged out of the 

system." Therefore, RDSS did not find her to be a suitable 

relative for custody of the child. 

 Glynis Boyd, the foster care worker for the family since 

January 25, 2002, also testified concerning the RDSS investigation 

of the maternal grandmother. Boyd reiterated Williams' testimony 

that RDSS had determined the maternal grandmother was an 

inappropriate custodian based on a CPS complaint against her and 

the fact that her son remained in foster care because she had not 

addressed certain "issues." 

 Boyd also testified that she did not know father had five 

siblings and mother had an aunt living locally. Boyd stated that 

she did not ask the parents about other relatives because she 

understood that, when she took over the case, the maternal 

grandmother was the only relative suitable for RDSS to explore as 

a possible custodian. She also believed that Williams would have 

investigated or considered any other relatives when she worked on 

the case. Boyd did not believe the parents had identified to RDSS 

any other relatives of the child to consider for placement. 

- 3 -
 Mother testified that she believed the maternal grandmother 

should get custody of the child. Mother also stated that her Aunt 

Gloria "at one time" was willing to take custody of the child. 

However, mother did not know Gloria's last name or her address. 

Mother testified that the maternal grandmother had informed RDSS 

about the possibility of the aunt as a custodian. Mother did not 

know any other relatives who were responsible enough to help her 

and father raise the child. 

 Father testified that he was not ready to have custody of the 

child and he believed the maternal grandmother should be the 

child's custodian. When counsel asked father what he suggested 

should be done in the event the child could not stay with the 

maternal grandmother, father replied, "That's about all I know 

because my parents . . . [have] got my niece and nephews . . . ." 

Counsel asked father whether his siblings could assist in raising 

the child, and father replied that one sister was unable to assist 

due to her poor health and that he was not in touch with his other 

siblings. 

ANALYSIS

 Code § 16.1-283(A) provides that in a termination of parental 

rights case "the court shall give a consideration to granting 

custody to relatives of the child, including grandparents." 

"[B]efore the court grants custody of a child, under the 

provisions of Code § 16.1-283(A) the Department has a duty to 

produce sufficient evidence so that the court may properly 

- 4 -
determine whether there are relatives willing and suitable to take 

custody of the child, and to consider such relatives in comparison 

to other placement options." Logan v. Fairfax County Dep't of 

Human_Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 131, 409 S.E.2d 460, 465 (1991). 

 Here, RDSS thoroughly investigated the maternal grandmother, 

whom the parents identified as a potential custodian for the 

child. RDSS presented evidence supporting its determination that 

the maternal grandmother was not a suitable custodian for the 

child. Thus, the trial court considered evidence as to the 

suitability of placing the child with the maternal grandmother 

before it ordered the termination of father's parental rights. 

 Furthermore, although mother identified her Aunt Gloria as 

another relative who may be willing to take custody of the child, 

mother was unable to provide the aunt's last name or any 

information concerning how to contact the aunt. "It is well 

established in Virginia that a court will not compel 'a vain and 

useless undertaking.'" Hawthorne v. Smythe County Dep't of Soc. 

Servs., 33 Va. App. 130, 139, 531 S.E.2d 639, 644 (2000) (citation 

omitted). 

 Moreover, father testified that he did not know any other 

relatives who would be willing and suitable to take custody of the 

child. He stated that his parents and one of his siblings were 

not suitable custodians and that he no longer had contact with the 

rest of his siblings. "We do not suggest that the Department has 

a duty in every case to investigate the home of every relative of 

- 5 -
the children, however remote, as a potential placement." Sauer v. 

Franklin County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 18 Va. App. 769, 771, 446 

S.E.2d 640, 642 (1994). Therefore, we find that RDSS presented 

sufficient evidence for the trial court to consider the 

suitability of placing the child with relatives prior to 

terminating father's parental rights. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 Affirmed.

- 6 -