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. Albe rtson, 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, A ssistant 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 Woodde ll (mother) appeal decisions of the circuit court te rminating their parental rights to their minor ch ildren, A.W and C.W., pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). On appe al, father and mother argue the circuit court erred in finding that th e Harrisonburg-Rockingham Social Se rvices District (HRSSD) presented

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - clear and convincing eviden ce that terminating their parental right s was in the best interests of the children. We affirm the deci sions of the circuit court. Background We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prev ailing party below and grant to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Lo gan 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 th e ground of abuse and neglect found on the bases of inadequate housing, inadequate su pervision, 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 on e 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 fo r substance abuse recovery programs. HRSSD referred C.W. to the Infant Toddler Connection. The fami ly did not follow th rough with the recommended services. In September 2014, HRSSD lear ned one of the children was injured after falling from a moving truck. In additi on, A.W. was missing schoo l. HRSSD referred the fa mily to their truancy unit and to Family Education Services (FES) in an effort to prevent remova l of the children. FES experienced difficulty reaching the parents and services did not begin until December 2014, when HRSSD received a complaint that me thamphetamine was being used inthe home whil e the children were present. After a home visit in December 2014, a social work er reported that the family home was “completely trashed” with pizza bo xes, pill bottles, and other items spread thro ughout the house. The two-year-old son had a cigarette burn on his fa ce 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 socialworker testifie d mother appeared to be “very overwhelmed” although only tw o children were present at the time of the visit. Mother reported to the social worker that she wa s 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 th e home, and she showed a worker a bruise on he r back caused by father hitting her. Mother also said father threw something into the wall, causing a ho le in the wall. The HRSSD employee advise d mother the children c ould not remain in the ho me 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 hi s speech was slurred. He stated he ha d consumed alcohol at lunch. Father also reported that he used methamphetamine an d “snorted” mother’s prescription drugs. He possessed a pill grinder. Father stated a friend had sold meth amphetamine 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 tw o-year-old child put a cigarette bu tt and lighter in his mouth while he was under mother’s superv ision. HRSSD again removed the children from the home on December 16, 2014. In order for th e children to return hom e, the parents needed to remedy issues concerning substance abuse, domestic violence, in adequate shelter, and parenting and supervisory skills. Mother tested positive for methamphetamine us e when the children we re removed. Mother and father completed psychological and parenting cap acity evaluations. Both parents were referred for substance abuse treatment. Mo ther likely had a substance depend ence disorder, and father was- 4 - diagnosed with a substance depe ndence disorder. Mother comple ted the Wellness and Recovery Decisions Group. However, she attended only two individual counse ling 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 al cohol. They both had a number of positive drug tests over a period of about ten months an d occasionally failed to appear for drug screening appointments. Mother once re fused to provide a urin e sample for testing. On March 10, 2015, a deputy reported to the family residence for a disorderly conduct report. Father was intoxicated, an d 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 creatin g appropriate boundaries, structur e, consistency, and supervision of the children. She testified the parents made some progress in understanding the needs of the children, but they conti nued to “struggle” to appr opriately supervise the children’s behavior. Skaflen also expressed co ncern 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 Pr ogram. Mother completed the program, and father was participating in the prog ram 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 drun k in public related to an incident in volving mother on August 14, 2015. Father completed twenty of twenty -four domestic violence classes. Katherine Leeds, a social worker with HRSSD, testif ied that, initially, th e four children were placed in one foster home. Th e older son was aggressive with A.W., the older daughter.- 5 - Eventually, the two sons were place d with relatives and received intensive in-home services. Leeds stated HRSSD wanted to keep the boys together and the girls togeth er when placing the children. Because the boys exhibited more behavioral issues, HRSSD believed a relative placement would provide more long term commitment and stabilit y than a foster home. The older son exhibited inappropriate sexuali zed 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 resi dence 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 plac ements. HRSSD placed A.W. and C.W. in a foster home, and the foster parent is intere sted 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 sch ool, and C.W. is showing no sign s of developmental delays. In addition, the foster mother expr essed a willingness to continue visitation with the siblings and family members of the daug hters. The foster moth er stated that A.W. ex hibited 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 ha d 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, 201 4, HRSSD informed Mr. Osborne that he and his wife would have to co mplete foster parenting training classes in order to be considered for relative pla cement of the two children. At the time of the circuit court hearing in 2016, the Osbornes were attendin g 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 co mmunicate with her, and she reported th at Mrs. Osborne rarely stood during- 6 - the visits with the children. Mr s. 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 deni ed having knowledge of the condition of the family home, the issues with th e children, mother’s substance ab use 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. beca use of the health issu es of the Osbornes. The foster care social worker testified A.W. acts more li ke 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 parent s to A.W. and C.W. Analysis “Where, as here, the court hear s the evidence ore tenus , its finding is entitl ed to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to su pport 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 considerin g termination of parental rights, “the paramount consideration of a trial court is the child’s best inte rests.” 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 stat es that a court may terminate parental rights if [t]he parent or parent s, without good cause, have been unwilling or unable within a reasonable period of time not to exceed twelve months from the date the child wa s placed in foster care to remedy substantially the conditio ns 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 pa rents’ custody based on concerns about inadequate shelter and care of the children, the parents’ substance abuse and domestic violence issues, and the parents’ insuffici ent parenting and supervisory skills. The ci rcuit court found there was no improvement in “the substance abuse area” ba sed on the drug tests and the parents’ failure to complete counseling. Mo ther likely had a substance dependenc e disorder, and father was diagnosed with a substance dependence disorder. Neither parent fully completed the recommended substance abuse programs and counseling serv ices. 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. Fa ther assaulted mother while they were in the program. Furt hermore, although there was improvement with the condition and cleanliness of the family ho me, the circuit court noted that improvement did not equate to keeping the home safe for the ch ildren. In addition, Skaflen observed visitations between the parents and the children and she expressed c oncern about mothe r’s ability to ade quately supervise the children while father worked. Furthermore, mother was ex pecting a fifth child. The parents assert it was not in the best in terests 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, th is consideration that is not “p aramount 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 factor s, including the age and physical and mental co ndition of the child, the ag e 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 numerou s behavioral issues. Their issu es are being addressed in the relative placement home. Furtherm ore, 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 f our 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 sh all 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 th at the court may properly determ ine whether there are relatives willing and suitable to take custod y of the child, and to consider such relati ves in comparison to other placement options.” Logan, 13 Va. App. at 131, 40 9 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 fo ster care worker expressed concern th at A.W. would continue to parent C.W. if the children were placed with the Osbornes . In addition, Mrs. Os borne appeared agitated and upset at a visitation when changing the diaper of one of th e children, and she was rarely observed standing. Furthermore, Mr. Osborne indicat ed he had observed no si gns that the children were neglected prior to their removal or that moth er 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 le ngthy period of time waiting to find out when, or ev en if, a parent will be capable of resuming hi s [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 violen ce issues, we hold that the circuit court did not err in finding that the parents had not substantially remedied the cond itions that led to the removal of A.W. and C.W. Considering the totality of th e evidence, the circuit court di d 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.