COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Alston, De cker and Senior Judge Coleman

RICARDO ESTABAN ASTUDILLO MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1364-13-4 PER CURIAM DECEMBER 17, 2013 FAIRFAX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Randy I. Bellows, Judge (Lavonda Graham Williams , on brief), for appellant. (David P. Bobzien, County Atto rney; Peter D. Andreoli, Jr., Deputy County Attorney; Donna R. Banks, Assistant Co unty Attorney; P. Gregory Bauserman, Guardian ad litem for the minor child, on brief), for appellee.
Ricardo Astudillo (father) app eals an order terminating his pare ntal rights to his child. Father argues that the trial co urt erred by finding that the Fair fax County Department of Family Services (the Department) “met its burden to terminat e the [father’s] parental ri ghts . . . by clear and convincing evidence beca use [father] had complied with the plan requirements and demonstrated the ability to independe ntly care for his son.” Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we affirm this case because regardless of the dis position of this appeal, the trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(B) remains intact. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of th e trial court. See Rule 5A:27. On April 29, 2011, the Department obtained cu stody of the child due to inconsistent statements by the parents concerning abuse and mother’s background, the family’s history of

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - domestic violence, and the child’s repeated expo sure to violence. The Fairfax County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Di strict Court (the JDR court) entered agreed orders that the child was abused and neglected. On August 22, 2012, the JD R court terminated father’s and mother’s parental rights. Both parties appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court heard evidence and argum ent over two days. Father minimized the issues of domestic violence and refused to take responsibility for his chil d entering and staying in foster care. The circuit court found that the record was “soaked with deception and dishonesty.” Father was uncooperative with the Department a nd created “unnecessary impediments.” Due to his lack of cooperation, the Department had diffi culty scheduling meetings and visitations. The circuit court found that father did not make progress with ther apy on his anger issues. Although father participated in several of the reco mmended programs and evaluations, “the compliance was superficial and did not accomplish its objectiv e.” The circuit court terminated father’s parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B) and (C)(2). 1 Father argues that the Department failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that father’s parental rights should be termin ated. In his brief, father focused on the termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) but does not challenge the termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B). “[C]lear and convincing evidence that the termin ation [of parental right s] is in the child’s best interests is a requirement in common to termination of parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(B) [or] (C) . . . .” Fields v. Dinwi ddie Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 8 n.5, 614 S.E.2d 656, 659 n.5 (2005). While the best in terests of the child is “the paramount consideration of a trial court” in a termination proceeding, Logan v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep’t of

1 The circuit court also terminated mother’s parental rights, but sh e did not appeal the ruling.- 3 - Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (2003), terminations under Code § 16.1-283(B) and the subsections of Code § 16. 1-283(C) provide distinct, “individual bases upon which a petitioner may seek to terminate resi dual parental rights,” C ity of Newport News Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Winslow, 40 Va. App. 556, 563, 580 S.E.2d 463, 466 (2003). Father contends the evidence was in sufficient to support the termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), but he does not challenge the termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B). Father’s failure to challenge the terminati on under Code § 16.1-283(B) renders moot his claim regarding the termination under C ode § 16.1-283(C)(2), and we need not consider it. See id. at 563, 580 S.E.2d at 466. For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ru ling is summarily affirmed. Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.