COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Humphreys, O’Brien and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

TIMOTHY WAYNE WOODDELL, JR. 

v. Record No. 0316-16-3 

 

HARRISONBURG-ROCKINGHAM MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 SOCIAL SERVICES DISTRICT PER CURIAM 

 OCTOBER 11, 2016 

AMANDA OSBORNE WOODDELL 

v. Record No. 0338-16-3 

HARRISONBURG-ROCKINGHAM 

 SOCIAL SERVICES DISTRICT 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY 

Bruce D. Albertson, Judge 

 (Kimberle Hackett Harding, on brief), for appellant Timothy Wayne 

Wooddell, Jr. Appellant submitting on brief. 

 (Tania L. Perez Rodriguez; John Elledge & Assoc PC, on brief), for 

appellant Amanda Osborne Wooddell. Appellant submitting on 

brief. 

 (Kim Van Horn Gutterman, Assistant County Attorney; Lynn 

Svonavec, Guardian ad litem for the minor children, on briefs), for 

appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on brief. 

 Timothy Wayne Wooddell, Jr. (father) and Amanda Osborne Wooddell (mother) appeal 

decisions of the circuit court terminating their parental rights to their minor children, A.W and 

C.W., pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). On appeal, father and mother argue the circuit court 

erred in finding that the Harrisonburg-Rockingham Social Services District (HRSSD) presented 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

UNPUBLISHED 
 - 2 - 

clear and convincing evidence that terminating their parental rights was in the best interests of the 

children. We affirm the decisions of the circuit court. 

Background 

 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and grant to 

it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Logan v. Fairfax Cty. Dep’t of Human 

Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 462 (1991). 

 Father and mother are the biological parents of four children. On December 16, 2014, the 

four children were removed from the custody of the parents on the ground of abuse and neglect 

found on the bases of inadequate housing, inadequate supervision, parental substance abuse, and 

exposure to domestic violence. The two female children, A.W. and C.W., who are the subject of the 

appeal, were seven years and one year old, respectively, at the time of the removal. 

 HRSSD became involved with the family in November 2013, based upon a concern that 

C.W. was born substance exposed to methamphetamine. HRSSD referred the parents to parenting 

classes and evaluations for substance abuse recovery programs. HRSSD referred C.W. to the Infant 

Toddler Connection. The family did not follow through with the recommended services. 

 In September 2014, HRSSD learned one of the children was injured after falling from a 

moving truck. In addition, A.W. was missing school. HRSSD referred the family to their truancy 

unit and to Family Education Services (FES) in an effort to prevent removal of the children. FES 

experienced difficulty reaching the parents and services did not begin until December 2014, when 

HRSSD received a complaint that methamphetamine was being used in the home while the children 

were present. 

 After a home visit in December 2014, a social worker reported that the family home was 

“completely trashed” with pizza boxes, pill bottles, and other items spread throughout the house. 

The two-year-old son had a cigarette burn on his face and a mark on his arm. Mother reported he 
 - 3 - 

ran into a burning cigarette and the hot ash fell onto his arm. C.W. was picking up crumbs and trash 

and putting these items into her mouth. The social worker testified mother appeared to be “very 

overwhelmed” although only two children were present at the time of the visit. 

 Mother reported to the social worker that she was taking Percocet, Tramadol, and Xanax. 

She stated she was “taking more than prescribed.” The social worker also saw bath salt containers, 

baggies containing a white substance, and smoking devices in the home. Mother reported there was 

domestic violence in the home, and she showed a worker a bruise on her back caused by father 

hitting her. Mother also said father threw something into the wall, causing a hole in the wall. The 

HRSSD employee advised mother the children could not remain in the home until it was cleaned. 

Mother took the children to her parents’ home. 

 On that same date, an HRSSD employee visited father at his place of employment. Father 

smelled of alcohol, and his speech was slurred. He stated he had consumed alcohol at lunch. Father 

also reported that he used methamphetamine and “snorted” mother’s prescription drugs. He 

possessed a pill grinder. Father stated a friend had sold methamphetamine from the family’s 

residence. Father asked for help with his substance abuse issues. 

 The children returned to the home for one day. An HRSSD employee who was providing 

education to mother stated the two-year-old child put a cigarette butt and lighter in his mouth while 

he was under mother’s supervision. HRSSD again removed the children from the home on 

December 16, 2014. In order for the children to return home, the parents needed to remedy issues 

concerning substance abuse, domestic violence, inadequate shelter, and parenting and supervisory 

skills. 

 Mother tested positive for methamphetamine use when the children were removed. Mother 

and father completed psychological and parenting capacity evaluations. Both parents were referred 

for substance abuse treatment. Mother likely had a substance dependence disorder, and father was 
 - 4 - 

diagnosed with a substance dependence disorder. Mother completed the Wellness and Recovery 

Decisions Group. However, she attended only two individual counseling sessions and she failed to 

report to the recommended group counseling sessions. Father did not complete individual or group 

counseling. In addition, mother and father continued to use drugs and/or alcohol. They both had a 

number of positive drug tests over a period of about ten months and occasionally failed to appear for 

drug screening appointments. Mother once refused to provide a urine sample for testing. 

 On March 10, 2015, a deputy reported to the family residence for a disorderly conduct 

report. Father was intoxicated, and he struggled with the deputy. Father was convicted of being 

drunk in public. 

 Both parents completed some parenting programs and participated in Parenting Education in 

conjunction with their weekly visitation with the children. During the visits, Andrea Skaflen of FES 

worked with the parents on creating appropriate boundaries, structure, consistency, and supervision 

of the children. She testified the parents made some progress in understanding the needs of the 

children, but they continued to “struggle” to appropriately supervise the children’s behavior. 

Skaflen also expressed concern for mother’s ability to care for the children on her own while father 

worked. In addition, mother was pregnant. 

 HRSSD referred the parents to the Batterer’s Intervention Program. Mother completed the 

program, and father was participating in the program at the time of the circuit court hearing on 

February 4, 2016. 

 Father was charged with assault and battery of a family member, possession of a Schedule 

III substance, and being drunk in public related to an incident involving mother on August 14, 2015. 

Father completed twenty of twenty-four domestic violence classes. 

 Katherine Leeds, a social worker with HRSSD, testified that, initially, the four children were 

placed in one foster home. The older son was aggressive with A.W., the older daughter. 
 - 5 - 

Eventually, the two sons were placed with relatives and received intensive in-home services. Leeds 

stated HRSSD wanted to keep the boys together and the girls together when placing the children. 

Because the boys exhibited more behavioral issues, HRSSD believed a relative placement would 

provide more long term commitment and stability than a foster home. 

 The older son exhibited inappropriate sexualized behaviors toward the younger son. For 

this reason, HRSSD recommended that the two boys not share a bedroom. In October 2015, 

Skaflen visited the family residence and found it was in better condition than it was when the 

children were removed. However, the parents had not established separate bedrooms for the sons. 

 Leeds testified the children are doing well in their respective placements. HRSSD placed 

A.W. and C.W. in a foster home, and the foster parent is interested in adopting the two girls. Leeds 

testified she has no concerns about the welfare of A.W. and C.W. in the custody of the foster home. 

A.W. is functioning well in school, and C.W. is showing no signs of developmental delays. In 

addition, the foster mother expressed a willingness to continue visitation with the siblings and 

family members of the daughters. The foster mother stated that A.W. exhibited signs of anxiety 

after the children had been removed from the parents’ custody for about one year. However, she 

explained that she believed A.W. was aware, at that time, that almost one year had passed since the 

removal and A.W. appeared to believe the family would have been back together by then. 

 HRSSD explored placing A.W. and C.W. with maternal grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Roger 

Osborne, who were both in their mid-sixties. On December 18, 2014, HRSSD informed 

Mr. Osborne that he and his wife would have to complete foster parenting training classes in order 

to be considered for relative placement of the two children. At the time of the circuit court hearing 

in 2016, the Osbornes were attending these classes. Mrs. Osborne has health issues and undergoes 

dialysis treatment several times a week. She also has difficulty hearing. An HRSSD employee 

stated it was hard to communicate with her, and she reported that Mrs. Osborne rarely stood during 
 - 6 - 

the visits with the children. Mrs. Osborne also appeared to be agitated and upset at a visitation 

when changing the diaper of one of the children. 

 At the circuit court hearing, Mr. Osborne denied having knowledge of the condition of the 

family home, the issues with the children, mother’s substance abuse problems, and her struggles 

caring for the children. 

 HRSSD opposed placing A.W. and C.W. with the Osbornes, concerned that A.W., who is 

parentified, would parent C.W. because of the health issues of the Osbornes. The foster care social 

worker testified A.W. acts more like a child and is less focused on C.W. when they are in the foster 

home. 

 The circuit court terminated the parental rights of both parents to A.W. and C.W. 

Analysis 

 “Where, as here, the court hears the evidence ore tenus, its finding is entitled to great weight 

and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Martin 

v. Pittsylvania Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20, 348 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1986) (citations 

omitted). When considering termination of parental rights, “the paramount consideration of a trial 

court is the child’s best interests.” Logan, 13 Va. App. at 128, 409 S.E.2d at 463. 

 The circuit court terminated the parental rights of the parents pursuant to Code 

§ 16.1-283(C)(2), which states that a court may terminate parental rights if 

[t]he 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. 

 The parents assert the circuit court erred in terminating their parental rights because they 

made progress in resolving the issues that led to the placement of their daughters in foster care. 
 - 7 - 

 HRSSD removed the children from the parents’ custody based on concerns about 

inadequate shelter and care of the children, the parents’ substance abuse and domestic violence 

issues, and the parents’ insufficient parenting and supervisory skills. The circuit court found there 

was no improvement in “the substance abuse area” based on the drug tests and the parents’ failure to 

complete counseling. Mother likely had a substance dependence disorder, and father was diagnosed 

with a substance dependence disorder. Neither parent fully completed the recommended substance 

abuse programs and counseling services. Father had several drunk in public charges after the 

children were removed from the home. 

 In addition, the circuit court found the “domestic violence is not significantly improved,” 

although the parents had attended the Batterer’s Intervention Program. Father assaulted mother 

while they were in the program. Furthermore, although there was improvement with the condition 

and cleanliness of the family home, the circuit court noted that improvement did not equate to 

keeping the home safe for the children. In addition, Skaflen observed visitations between the 

parents and the children and she expressed concern about mother’s ability to adequately supervise 

the children while father worked. Furthermore, mother was expecting a fifth child. 

 The parents assert it was not in the best interests of the children to place them in two 

separate homes. While it is true that the effect of the separation of siblings should be considered 

during a determination of custody, this consideration that is not “paramount to others.” Hughes 

v. Gentry, 18 Va. App. 318, 323-24, 443 S.E.2d 448, 452 (1994). In determining what is in the 

best interests of the child, a court must evaluate and consider many factors, including the age and 

physical and mental condition of the child, the age and physical and mental condition of the parent, 

the relationship existing between the parent and child, the needs of the child, and the role the parent 

has played, and will play in the future, in the upbringing and care of the child. Barkey v. 
 - 8 - 

Commonwealth, Alexandria Dep’t of Human Servs., Div. of Soc. Servs., 2 Va. App. 662, 668-69, 

347 S.E.2d 188, 191 (1986). 

 Here, evidence was presented that the older son was aggressive with the older daughter, 

and the two sons exhibited numerous behavioral issues. Their issues are being addressed in the 

relative placement home. Furthermore, the foster mother of A.W. and C.W. stated she intended 

to ensure the girls maintained contact with their siblings and other family members. The 

guardian ad litem also supported the placement of the four children, stating it was “necessary” 

and was “not overwhelming” for the caregivers. Under these circumstances, we cannot say the 

trial court erred in finding that the two placements were in the best interests of the children. 

 The parents assert the circuit court erred by not placing A.W. and C.W. with relatives. 

Before terminating a parent’s rights, “the court shall give a consideration to granting custody to 

relatives of the child, including grandparents.” Code § 16.1-283(A). HRSSD had “a duty to 

produce sufficient evidence so that the court may properly 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, 13 Va. App. at 131, 409 S.E.2d at 465. 

 The evidence showed that Mrs. Osborne, who was sixty-six years old and has several health 

issues, would have been the primary caretaker of the two children because Mr. Osborne worked 

outside the home. The foster care worker expressed concern that A.W. would continue to parent 

C.W. if the children were placed with the Osbornes. In addition, Mrs. Osborne appeared agitated 

and upset at a visitation when changing the diaper of one of the children, and she was rarely 

observed standing. Furthermore, Mr. Osborne indicated he had observed no signs that the children 

were neglected prior to their removal or that mother had substance abuse issues. The circuit court 

acknowledged the “good intentions” of the Osbornes, however, based on the evidence presented, the 
 - 9 - 

circuit court found they were not an appropriate relative placement for the children. The evidence 

supports this decision. 

 “It is clearly not in the best interests of a child to spend a lengthy period of time waiting to 

find out when, or even if, a parent will be capable of resuming his [or her] responsibilities.” 

Kaywood v. Halifax Cty. Dep’t of Social Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1990). 

Given that the parents had made no appreciable progress in establishing an adequate home or 

addressing their substance abuse and domestic violence issues, we hold that the circuit court did not 

err in finding that the parents had not substantially remedied the conditions that led to the removal 

of A.W. and C.W. 

 Considering the totality of the evidence, the circuit court did not err in terminating the 

parental rights of mother and father to A.W. and C.W and in finding that it was in the children’s best 

interests to do so. 

Affirmed.