COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Humphreys, O’Br ien and Senior Judge Bumgardner

HOWARD ALLEN GROFFEL MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1397- 17-2 PER CURIAM MARCH 20, 2018 NEW KENT DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NEW KENT COUNTY B. Elliott Bondu rant, Judge (Martin Mooradian, on brief), for appellant. (Andrea G. Erard; Louise A. Moore, Guardian ad litem for the minor children, on brief), for appellee.
Howard Allen Groffel (father) appeals the orders terminating h is parental rights to A. and M. and approving the goals of ad option. Father argues that the trial court erred by terminating his parental rights to A. and M. pur suant to Code § 16.1-283(B) and (C) because “the in itial reason the children were taken in to foster care was resolved, . . . the fa cts at trial do not support the ruling and the ruling was contrary to Virginia Code § 16.1-283.” Upon rev iewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accord ingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
BACKGROUND “On appeal, ‘we view the evide nce and all reason able inference s in the light most favorable to the prevailing part y below, in this case the Department.’” Farrell v. Warren Cty.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this op inion is not designated fo r publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 59 Va. App. 375, 386, 719 S.E.2d 329, 334 (2012) (quoting Jenkins v. Winchester Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 12 Va. App. 1178, 1180, 409 S. E.2d 16, 18 (1991)). Father and Lisa Groffel (mot her) are married and the biologica l parents of A. and M. The Department was involved with t he family in 2014 due to allegati ons of inadequate supervision. The Department ultimately closed the case in August 2015. On November 17, 2015, father calle d 911 from his car when he wa s in Fairfax County. When the police arrived, father was disoriented and confused. 1 The police discovered A. and M. in father’s car. At the time, A. was seven years old and M. wa s five years old. Father was transported to a Fairfax hospita l, where he stayed for four or five days on a temporary detention order. Since mother was incarcer ated at the time and there wer e no available relatives, the Fairfax County Department of Fam ily Services took custody of th e children and placed them in foster care. On November 24, 2015, a family partnership meetin g was held. Mother participated and said that she thought it woul d be best for the children to remain in foster care. She expressed concerns about father’s ment al health. Father was no longer inthe hospital, but he did not attend the meeting. Also, on November 24, 2015, the Fairfax County Ju venile and Domestic Relations District Court made a finding of abuse/neglect and transferred the case to New Kent County. The children came into the Department’s care on that same date. Father subsequently contacted the Department. He called Jon M artz, the director of the Department, on a daily basis, yell ing and threatening Martz. F ather argued that the Department was violating his civ il rights and steali ng his children. Fath er believed that the Department was following him and taking his income. At no time during the fir st month that the children were in foster care did father ask about their well-being.

1 At the circuit court hearing, f ather testified that he had a b ad reaction to several of his prescriptions interacting with each other.- 3 - The Department recommended that father participate in a mental health evaluation, a medical evaluation, substance abuse assessment, anger managemen t assessment, parenting class, and parental coaching. The Depart ment also required father to follow through with any treatment suggested by the assessm ents. The Department offered in-home support to father, but he refused the services. The D epartment provided father with g as cards, Food Lion gift cards, and food. The Department assisted father in applying for Medic aid and gave him Rite Aid gift cards to help him purchase his medications. The Department required fathe r to sign a visitation agreement before he visited with the children. At first, father refu sed to sign the visitation agre ement, so he did not see the children. Father eventually agreed to si gn the visitation agreement, so i n June and July 2016, the Department arranged for three su pervised visits between father and the children. However, the visitations stopped after father refused to follow the terms of the visitation agreement and made inappropriate comments to the c hildren during th e visitations. Martz testified that father “wanted to focus on what New Kent had done to him and was unable to foc us on the children and how they were doing or the fact that they were separated from him.” On July 14, 2016, Dr. Craig King prep ared a psychological eval uation and parenting assessment for father. King att empted to test father, but fath er refused to cooperate with the testing. Based on the informati on given to him and his interac tions with father, King agreed that a prior diagnosis of father ha ving “unspecified schizophrenia s pectrum or other psychotic disorder” appears to be appropr iate “until more information is gleaned to more precisely diagnosis [sic] [father’s] ps ychotic disorder.” King noted tha t father’s “psychotic disorder makes it very challenging for him to f unction and take care of his ow n needs, let alone be responsible for his children.” King conclude d that father was “not capable of appropriately caring for or parenting two special needs children at this time, and he is ve ry likely a danger to his children.”- 4 - King further opined that the “pr ognosis for [father] being able to adequately meet his children’s needs and safely parent them is very poor.” In November 2016, father participat ed in a substance abuse ass essment and no services were recommended. Father also presented himself for an anger m anagement intake, but the provider believed that father’s m ental health issues needed to be addressed before confronting any anger management issues. On February 2, 2017, father called the New Kent Sheriff’s Offi ce and said he had ingested antifreeze. Emergenc y personnel arrived and transport ed father to the hospital. Once father was medically cleared, he was transferred to a psychiatr ic unit because of the attempted suicide. Father told Martz tha t he did not try to commit suici de, and said that after he had some of his jewelry cleaned, the je weler put cleaning fluid in one o f his medicine bottles, which he drank. 2 In February 2017, the Department filed petitions to terminate f ather’s parenta l rights to A. and M. 3 On June 5, 2017, the New Kent County Juvenile and Domestic Re lations District Court (the JDR court) entered o rders terminating father’s paren tal rights to A. and M. Father appealed the decisions to the circuit court. While the children remained in fos ter care, father was arrested and charged with several criminal offenses. On May 19, 2017, the New Kent County Circui t Court convicted father of obstruction of justice and violation of a pr otective order. On each of the charg es, the circuit court sentenced father to twelv e months in jail, with six month s suspended. The circuit court

2 At trial, father denied telling M artz that he drank jewelry cl eaner. Father admitted to drinking antifreeze in a cup of coffee.

3 The Department also filed peti tions to terminate mother’s pare ntal rights, and the JDR court terminated mother’s pare ntal rights to the children. Mot her appealed to the circuit court, which also terminated mother’s parental rights to A. and M. Mo ther appealed the circuit court’s rulings to this Court. See L. Gro ffel v. New Kent Dep’t of Soc . Servs., Record No. 1427-17-2.- 5 - also ordered him to be placed on pr obation for three years. Atthe time of the termination hearing, father was being he ld without bond on new felony and m isdemeanor charges. When asked if he was participating i n any services or educational pr ograms at the jail, father responded negatively and stated that he did no t plan to participate in an y programs. On August 2, 2017, the parties appear ed before the circuit cour t. Martz testified that father “was unable to take res ponsibility for a nything that had happened.” According to Martz, the Department “made countless appointments for him to see diff erent doctors, to see therapists, to see counselors, and he just w ould not cooperate at all.” Fa ther refused to follow through with any of the recommendations made by the Department or counselors . When asked why he thought his children were still in foster ca re, father testifie d that there was a “personality conflict” between Martz and him and that “New Kent County has m ade it their mission to not return [his] children to [him].” The Department asked father a bout his suicide attempt in February 2017, and father said tha t he tried to commit suicide because he had a “nervous breakdown due to what New Kent a nd DSS had [done to him].” Fat her admitted that it was not his first suicide attempt. Father also discusse d the children. He expl ained that he and m other identified several of the children’s issues, such as A. needing glasses and M. needin g tubes in his ears. In order to meet the children’s needs, fat her said that he and mother took the children to numerous doctors in Richmond and the Tidewater area. The foster mother testified about the children. Both of the ch ildren have special needs and learning disabilities. Whe n M. first entered foster care, he was nonverbal. M. was five years old and did not know his colors, shapes, numbers, or ABC’s. Ev en though she was seven years old when she entered foster ca re, A. also did not know her ABC’ s and could only count to five. The foster mother said that in itially, the ch ildren did not lik e to bathe unless they were with each- 6 - other, and they displayed some s exually inappropriate behavior. Both children were aggressive and did not like to be touched. The school frequently called the foster mother because M. had been aggressive with another s tudent or damaged property. M. h it and bit the foster mother. He also hit himself or banged his h ead on the floor. A. was “unki nd” to her peers and yelled. Neither one of the children knew how to eat with silverware, so they shoved the food in their mouths. They were malnourished and refused to eat anything oth er than McDonald’s. The children could not dress themse lves. Both had trouble sleeping and had frequent nightmares. Both children wore pull-ups due t o being incontinent. The chil dren had trouble with fine motor skills and could not brush t heir teeth on their own. Both children also had physical a nd health issues when they ent ered foster care. A. required surgery to correct tw o lazy eyes. She also required o ral surgery to remove two baby teeth and had to have cavities f illed. Both children had to ha ve their tonsils and adenoids removed, and they needed tubes for their ears. Both children n eeded braces for their feet and legs. Both required counseling, physical therapy, speech thera py, and occupational therapy. At the time of the circuit cour t hearing, the children had impr oved physically, socially, and academically. Both children have learning disabilities and have individualized education programs (IEP). A.’s IEP states that she was diagnosed with br ain damage secondary to autism. M.’s IEP states that he was dia gnosed with autism and attentiondeficit disorder. The foster mother homeschooled the children over the summer. At the time of the circuit court hearing, A. was reading at grade level a nd could write her ABC’s. She coul d count to 100 and was learning addition, subtraction, and multiplication. M. knew his ABC’s, colors, and days of the week. A. could dress herself, but needed s ome assistance with buttons an d zippers. M. still needed help dressing himself. Both child ren enjoyed going to school and so cial activities. Both children- 7 - were calmer. The foster mother said that each child still went to approximately five appointments each week. At the conclusion of all of the evi dence and argument, the circ uit court terminated father’s parental rights purs uant to Code § 16.1-283(B), (C)(1) , and (C)(2). This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS Father argues that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights to A. and M. pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B) and (C ). “Where, as here, the c ourt 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 suppor t it.” Fauquier Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Ridgeway, 59 Va. App. 185, 190, 717 S.E.2d 811, 814 (2011) (quoting Martin v . Pittsylvania Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20, 348 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1986)). “Wh en considering termination of parental rights, ‘the paramount consideration of a trial court is the child’s best interests.’” Id. (quoting Logan v. Fairfax Cty. D ep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991)). Father argues that the childre n were removed from his care bec ause he had a bad reaction to medication he was prescribed. H e asserts that after the med ication issues w ere resolved, he could have resumed caring for hi s children. Contrary to his ar guments, however, father did not remedy the conditions that led t o the children being placed, an d remaining, in foster care. Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) states that a court may terminate parent al rights if: The parent or parents, wit hout good cause, have been unwilling or unable within a reasonable pe riod of time not to exceed 12 mont hs from the date the child was placed in foster care to remedy substantially the condi tions which led to or required continuat ion of the child’s foster care p lacement, notwithstanding the reasonable and appropriate efforts of social, medical, mental h ealth or other rehabilitative agencies to such end.- 8 - In this case, the children ente red foster care after father dr ove them to Fairfax County when he had serious mental health issues that required an exten ded hospitalization and mother was incarcerated. The Department presented evidence about fath er’s mental health and services offered to him. Father’s mental health issues remained a conce rn throughout the time the children were in foster care. I n addition to the hospitalizati on in November 2015, father was hospitalized again in Februar y 2017 due to a suicide attempt. The Department referred father for numerous evaluations and couns eling. Father refused to coopera te with the testing conducted by Dr. King, who opined that father’s m ental health issues prevent ed him from taking care of his children. Dr. King also opined t hat he was very likely a dange r to the children. At the time of the circuit court hearing, the children had bee n in foster care for almost two years. Father was not able to take care of the children be cause he was incarcerated. He did not have a place to live or a job upon his release. Father had not addressed his mental health issues. “The twelve-month time limit established by Code § 16.1-283(C) (2) was designed to prevent an indeterminate state of foster care ‘drift’ and to en courage timeliness by the courts and social services in addressing the circumstances that resulted i n the foster care placement.” L.G. v. Amherst County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 41 Va. App. 51, 56, 581 S.E.2d 886, 889 (2003). “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.” Tackett v. Arlington Cty. Dep’t of Human Servs., 62 Va. App. 296, 322, 746 S.E.2d 509, 522 (2013) (quoting Kaywood v. Halifax Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. A pp. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1990)). The evidence proved that alt hough the children have improved w hile in foster care, they have special needs that demand s ignificant time and attention. They have numerous- 9 - appointments on a weekly basis. T he children need consistency and stability, which father is unable to provide. The trial court found that it was in the children’s best inter ests to terminate father’s parental rights and approve the goal of adoption. The trial co urt found the foster mother’s testimony about the condition of the children from the time the y entered foster care until the circuit court heari ng to be “quite candi d” and “more believable ” than mother or father’s testimony. “It is well established that the trier of fact asce rtains a witness’ credibility, determines the weight to be gi ven to their testimony, and has d iscretion to accept or reject any of the witness’ testimony.” Layman v. Layman, 62 Va. App. 134, 13 7, 742 S.E.2d 890, 891 (2013) (quoting Street v. Street, 25 Va. App. 380, 387, 488 S.E.2d 665 , 668 (1997) ( en banc )). Based on the totality of the cir cumstances, the trial court di d not err in terminating father’s parental rights purs uant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) and approving the goal of adoption. The trial court also terminate d father’s parental rights pursu ant to Code § 16.1-283(B) and (C)(1). “When a trial court’ s judgment is made on alternat ive grounds, we need only consider whether any one of the a lternatives is sufficient to s ustain the judgment of the trial court, and if so, we need not addr ess the other grounds.” Kilb y v. Culpeper Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 55 Va. App. 106, 108 n.1, 684 S.E.2d 219, 220 n.1 (2009 ); see also Fields v. Dinwiddie Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 8, 614 S.E.2d 656, 65 9 (2005) (the Court affirmed termination of parental right s under one subsection of Code § 1 6.1-283 and did not need to address termination of parental r ights pursuant to another subs ection). Therefore, we will not consider whether the trial cour t erred in terminating father’s parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B) and (C)(1).- 10 - CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ruling is summaril y affirmed. Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.