COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Ke lsey and Senior Judge Hodges

ALEXANDER GILES MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 04 45-03-2 PER CURIAM JULY 15, 2003 RICHMOND DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND Melvin R. Hugh es, Jr., Judge (Craig W. Sampson; Sa mpson Law Firm , PLC, on brief), for appellant. (Sarah M. Denham, As sistant City Attorney; Rene S. Hicks, Guardian ad Litem for Hakeem Baker, on brief), for appellee.

Alexander Gile s (father) appeals a de cision of the trial court terminating his parental rights and approv ing a goal of adoption for Hakeem Ba ker (the child). On appeal, father argues that the trial court fa iled to adequa tely explore th e possibility of placing the chil d with a relative pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(A). Upon reviewing the reco rd and briefs of the parties, we conc lude that this appeal is withou t merit. Accordingly, we su mmarily affirm the decision of the tria l 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 re asonable inferences in th e light most favorable to the Richmond Department of Social Services (RDSS) as the party prevaili ng below. See McGuire v. McGuire , 10 Va. App. 248, 250, 391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990). Father and Kelly Bake r (mother) are the pare nts of the child. The child was born on August 19, 2001, at which time he tested positive for cocaine. He was immediatel y removed from the parents' care, and when he was two days old, he was placed in a foster home. He rema ins in that home. RD SS provided numerous services to the parents, but the parents did not comply with the services. The goal of the fi rst foster care plan was placement with relatives. In June 2002, RDSS filed a fost er care plan with a goal of adoption . In July 2002, the juvenile and domestic relations dist rict court approved the plan and terminated the parental rights of both parents. Th e circuit court also approved the plan with the goal of adoption and term inated the parental rights of fath er and mother. At the trial court he aring, Bragail Willia ms, an employee of RDSS who worked with the family from August 2001 until January 2002, testified th at the parents id entified the ch ild's maternal grandmother as a possible relative to take cu stody of the child. Williams stated that RDSS investigated the grandmother and

- 2 -determined there were several child protective se rvices (CPS) complaints filed agains t her in both Wisconsi n and Virgin ia. In addition, one of her children had been in foster ca re for at least six years and she had been convicted of fe lony child neglect in Wisconsin. The maternal grandmother also had had se veral other children removed from her custody, two of wh om "aged out of the system." Theref ore, RDSS did no t find her to be a suitable relative for custody of the child. Glynis Boyd, the fo ster care worker fo r the family since January 25, 2002, also testified co ncerning the RDSS investigation of the maternal grandm other. Boyd reiterat ed Williams ' testimony that RDSS had determ ined the maternal grandmothe r was an inappropriate custodian based on a CPS complaint against her and the fact that her son remained in foster care beca use she had not addressed certain "issues." Boyd also testifie d that she did not kn ow father had five siblings and mother had an aunt living locally. Boyd stated that she did not ask the pa rents about ot her relatives because she understood that, when she took over the case, the maternal grandmother was th e only relative suitable for RDSS to explore as a possible custodian. She also believed that Williams would have investigated or considered any other relati ves when she worked on the case. Boyd did no t believe the pa rents had identi fied to RDSS any other relati ves of the child to co nsider for placement.

- 3 -Mother testified that she beli eved the matern al grandmother should get custody of th e child. Mother also stated that her Aunt Gloria "at one time" wa s willing to take cust ody of the child. However, mother di d not know Gloria's last name or her address. Mother testified that the maternal grandmothe r had informed RDSS about the possibil ity of the aunt as a cust odian. Mother did not know any other relative s who were responsible enough to help her and father raise the child. Father testified that he was not re ady to have cu stody of the child and he believed the maternal grandm other should be the child's custod ian. When counsel asked father what he suggested should be done in th e event the chil d could not st ay with the maternal grandmother, father replied, "Tha t's about all I know because my parents . . . [have] got my niece and nephews . . . ." Counsel asked fath er whether his si blings could assi st in raising the child, and father re plied that one sister was unable to assist due to her poor health and that he wa s not in touch with his other siblings. ANALYSIS Code § 16.1-283(A) pr ovides that in a term ination of parental rights case "the cour t shall give a consid eration to granting custody to relatives of the child, includ ing grandpar ents." "[B]efore the co urt grants custody of a child, under the provisions of Code § 16.1-283(A ) the Department has a duty to produce sufficie nt evidence so that the court ma y properly

- 4 -determine whet her there are relatives will ing and suitab le to take custody of the child, an d to consider such re latives in comparison to other placem ent 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 mate rnal grandmother, whom the parents iden tified as a potential cust odian for the child. RDSS presente d evidence supporting its determin ation that the maternal grandmot her was not a suitable custodian for the child. Thus, th e trial court co nsidered eviden ce as to the suitability of placin g the child with the maternal grandmother before it ordere d the termination of father's pa rental rights. Furthermore, although mother identified her Aunt Gloria as another relative who may be willing to ta ke custody of the child, mother was unable to provide the aunt's last name or any information co ncerning how to contact the aunt. "It is well established in Virginia that a court will no t compel 'a vain and useless undert aking.'" Hawthorne v. Smythe Co unty Dep't of Soc. Servs. , 33 Va. App. 130, 139, 531 S. E.2d 639, 644 (2 000) (citation omitted). Moreover, father te stified that he did not know any other relatives who woul d be willing and suitable to take custody of the child. He stated th at his parents and one of his siblings were not suitable custodians and that he no longer had contact with the rest of his sibl ings. "We do no t suggest that th e Department has a duty in every ca se to investigat e the home of ev ery relative of

- 5 -the children, however remote, as a potential placement." Sauer v. Franklin County De p't of Soc. Servs. , 18 Va. App. 769, 771, 446 S.E.2d 640, 642 (1994). Therefore, we fi nd that RDSS presented sufficient evidence for the trial cour t to consider the suitability of placing the ch ild with relati ves prior to terminating fath er's parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Affirmed.

- 6 -