COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Beales, Huff and Senior Judge Clements

HARRY LEE WALKER MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0312- 18-1 PER CURIAM MARCH 5, 2019 CITY OF HAMPTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON Walter J. Ford, Judge (Joshua A. Goff; Goff Voltin, P LLC, on brief), for appellant. (Kendall Bynum, Assis tant City Attorney; Lola Rodriguez Perki ns, Senior Deputy City Attorney; Rachel E. Mad den, Guardian ad litem for the minor child; Riley Law, PLLC, on brief), for appellee.
Harry Lee Walker (fat her) appeals the circuit court orders ter minating his parental rights and approving the foster care goal of adoption. Father argues that the circuit court erred by (1) approving the foster care goal of adoption because the City of Hampton Depar tment of Social Services (the Department) failed to prove that the goal of adop tion was in the child ’s best interests and that reasonable efforts were made to reunite the child with his parents and (2) terminating father’s parental righ ts under Code § 16.1 -283(C)(1) and (C)(2) because the Depart ment failed to offer sufficient evidence to support the termination. 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 circuit court. See Rule 5A:27.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this op inion is not designated fo r publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - BACKGROUND 1 “On appeal, ‘we view the evidenc e and all reason able inferences in the light most favorable to the prevailing part y below, in this case the Department.’” Farrell v. Warren Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 59 Va . App. 375, 386 (2012) (quoting Jenk ins v. Winchester Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 12 Va. App. 1178, 1180 (1991)). Lela Weiford and father have one c hild together, S.W. Mother i s the biological mother to six other children, M.W., X.W ., K.W., Z.B.W., Z.J.W., and V.W. The Department first became involved with mother and her children when a dog bit Z.B.W. and S.W. on two different dates in 2015. Both of the children required medical treatment for the dog bites. The Department offered family support and child care se rvices, but mother refused the services because she “did not want anyone in her home or car ing for her children.” On May 1, 2016, the Department again became involved with mothe r and the children after V.W., who was ten months ol d at the time, almost drowned. Mother reported that she was taking a shower with V.W. and Z .J.W., who was two years old at the time. She left the bathroom to get dressed and thought her boyf riend, Juan Alcala, was watc hing the children. 2 When Alcala came into the bedroom, mother ask ed Alcala about the children. They ran back to the bathroom and found V.W. under the water beca use the tub drain was broken . V.W. was blue and unresponsive. M.W. ran next door a nd asked the neighbors to ca ll 911, while mother and Alcala

1 The record in this case was seal ed. Nevertheless, the appeal necessitates unsealing relevant portions of the record f or purposes of resolving the i ssues raised by appellant. Evidence and factual findings below that are necessary to address the as signments of error are included in this opinion. Consequently, “[t] o the extent that this opinion mentions facts found in the sealed record, we unseal only those speci fic facts, finding them relev ant to the decision in this case. The remainder of the previousl y sealed record remains sealed.” Levick v. MacDougall, 294 Va. 283, 288 n.1 (2017).

2 Alcala was the biological fath er to the three youngest childre n, Z.B.W., Z.J.W., and V.W.- 3 - performed cardio-pulmonary res uscitation. First responders rev ived V.W. and transported him to the hospital. The hospital staff noticed that V.W. had a purpl e bruise on his righ t eyelid and that mother was “aggressive” with hi m. When asked about V.W.’s brui se, mother said that the day before, on April 30, 2016, Z.J.W. had knocked a chair off a tab le, and it hit V.W. The next day, on May 2, 2016, the Department removed all seven of the children from mother’s care. The three olde st children, who ranged in age fr om ten years old to seven years old, were placed in one foster home, and the four youngest chil dren, who ranged in age from four years old to one year old, were placed in a nother nearby foster home. At the time of the removal, father was incarcerated; however, h e was released from prison on September 6, 2016. Father contacted the Department a nd scheduled a meeting for September 27, 2016. Father did not appear for the meeting. Th e Department met father at a court hearing on October 11, 2016, and s cheduled another meetin g for October 14, 2016. Again, father did not appear for the m eeting. The Department had no f urther contact with father. At the time of the circuit court hear ing, he was incarcerated again. Meanwhile, the Department require d mother to complete a parenta l capacity evaluation, which the evaluator complet ed on June 16, 2016. The evaluator expressed concern about mother deferring to Alcala, who was not a “safe independent care provi der,” for “primary care, limit setting, supervision, and discip line” of her children. The eva luator opined that mother had “an ongoing high risk for maladaptive parenting and inadequate supe rvision.” Based on the recommendations of the evaluator , the Department required mothe r to participate in parenting classes, a substance abuse trea tment program, domestic violence and relationship classes, one-on-one parent mentoring servi ces, and intensive individual psychotherapy. Mother completed the counseling service s and four parenting courses. She also completed the substance abuse treatment program and had all negative drug screens. Mot her actively participated in- 4 - visitation with her children. Alt hough she had some financial struggles, mother maintained a job and housing. By March 24, 2017, mother had made sufficient progress to permi t the Department to start the process of allowing a t rial home placement with the c hildren and mother. The Department informed mother t hat Alcala, who had been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, was not allowed in the home because the children were not safe around him. The Department was concerned that Alcala was t oo “unpredictable,” “angry,” and “verbally aggressive.” Furthermore, Alcala had not bee n compliant with his treatment p lan for therapy and medication management. The Department revi ewed with mother the steps that she could take if Alcala came to the house while the ch ildren were present. On April 1, 2017, the children began day visits with mother at her home, and on April 28, 2017, they started overnight vi sits. On April 30, 2017, the De partment transitioned the four youngest children for a trial home placement. On May 1, 2017, the Department learned that Alcala had been at the home while the children were presen t. Alcala had disciplined M.W. and “pushed him out the front door and threw his shoes at him.” O n May 2, 2017, the Department met wi th mother, who reported that Alcala had been to the home only one time. The Department warn ed mother that the children were at risk of being removed fro m her home if Alcala was prese nt. The children’s guardian ad litem subsequently met with the children and learned that Alcala had been at the home multiple times and had spent the ni ght while they were present. In spite of the Department’s instructions, mother continued to all ow Alcala to pare nt and discipline the children. Upon learning this information, the Department h ad “grave concerns regarding her[] ability to keep the children safe due to her poor judgeme nt, lack of growth in increasing her protective capacity and past CPS [h]istory.” Accordingly, the Department removed the children- 5 - from mother’s home on May 5, 2017, and placed them back in thei r foster homes. On May 7, 2017, Alcala boarded a bus a nd moved to California. On July 18, 2017, the Department filed petitions for a permanen cy planning hearing with the goal of adoption. On August 15, 2017, the City of Hampton Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (the J DR court) approved the goal of a doption for the children. Father and mother appealed the permanen cy planning orders to the circu it court. On October 10, 2017 the JDR court entered the orde rs terminating father’s and mothe r’s parental rights to their children. Father and mother also appealed the termination orde rs to the circuit court. On January 26, 2018, the parties app eared before the circuit co urt. The Department reported that the children had “some behavior problems and stru ggles,” but their foster parents were able to manage their beha viors. The children had establis hed a good rapport with their foster parents. Mother presented letters fro m several friends, who supported mo ther and expressed their willingness to help her as needed. Mother also wrote a letter, expressing her love for the children and her desire to have t he children returned to her. Father was incarcerated, and there was no evidence presented as to the length of his sentence. After hearing all of the eviden ce and argument, the circuit court found that it was in the children’s best interests to ter minate father’s and mother’s parental rights and a pprove the goal of adoption. This appeal followed. 3
ANALYSIS “On review, ‘[a] trial court is presumed to have thoroughly wei ghed all the evidence, considered the statutory requirements, and made its determinati on based on the child’s best

3 Mother also appealed the circu it court’s rulings. See Weiford v. City of Hampton Dep’t of Soc. Servs., Record No. 0311-18-1.- 6 - interests.’” Castillo v. Loudoun C ty. Dep’t of Family Servs., 68 Va. App. 547, 558 (2018) (quoting Logan v. Fairfax Cty. D ep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128 (1991)). “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 plai nly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Fauquier Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Ridgeway, 59 Va. App. 185, 190 (2011) (quotin g Martin v. Pittsylvania Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20 (1986)). Father argues that the circuit court erred in finding that the evidence was sufficient to terminate his parental rights and approve the goal of adoption. Father specifically asserts that the Department failed to prove that termination of his parental rig hts to S.W. and the approval of the goal of adoption were in S.W.’s (o r the other children’s) best interests. He further contends that the Department did not make reasonable efforts to assist mother in remedying the conditions that led to the children’s foster car e placement and to reunite her with the children, e specially after Alcala left Virginia on May 7, 2017. The Department argues that fat her did not raise these specific arguments with the circuit court, so this Court should not consider them under Rule 5A:18. The Department asserts that father did not move to strike the Department’s evidence, and hi s closing argument focused on giving mother another chance. He never argued against his pare ntal rights being terminated. In addition, father endorsed the fin al orders as “Seen and objecte d to” with no furth er explanation. “No ruling of the trial cour t . . . will be considered as a ba sis for reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonabl e certainty at the time of t he ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of A ppeals to attain the ends of j ustice.” Rule 5A:18. “Ordinarily, endorsement of an order ‘Seen and o bjected to’ is not specific enough to meet the requirements of Rule 5A:18 because it does not s ufficiently alert the trial court to the claimed error.” Herring v. Herring, 33 Va. App. 281, 286 (2000) (quoting Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 515 (1991) ( en- 7 - banc )). “This Court has held that ‘[ c]ounsel may meet the mandates of Rule 5A:18 in many ways. For instance, counsel m ay make clear the ground for his objection in a motion to strike the evidence or in closing argument. ’” Moncrief v. Div. of Child S upport Enf’t ex rel. Joyner, 60 Va. App. 721, 729 (2012) (quoting L ee, 12 Va. App. at 515). “T he purpose of Rule 5A:18 is ‘to ensure that the trial court and opposing party are given the op portunity to intelligently address, examine, and resolve issues in t he trial court, thus avoiding u nnecessary appeals.’” Friedman v. Smith, 68 Va. App. 529, 544 (2018) (quoting Andrews v. Commonwe alth, 37 Va. App. 479, 493 (2002)). “The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument o n appeal which was not presented to the trial court.” Tackett v. Arli ngton Cty. Dep’t of Human Servs., 62 Va. App. 296, 315 (2013) (quoting Ohree v. Com monwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308 (1998)). The circuit court terminated f ather’s parental rights under Co de § 16.1-283(C)(1) and (C)(2). For the first time on a ppeal, father argues that the c ircuit court erred by terminating his parental rights under Code § 16.1- 283(C)(1) and that his incarc eration was “good cause” for his failure to maintain contact with S.W. and plan for his future. Furthermore, he does not offer any arguments as to why his parental rights should not be terminated under Code § 16.1-283 (C)(2). Father never presented any evidence or any argument regarding t he termination of his parental rights. At trial, his arguments focused solely on the request for mother’s parental rights not to be terminated. Therefore, we will not consider on appeal any of h is arguments regarding the termination of his parental rights. Likewise, father raises for t he first time on appeal that the Department failed to meet the statutory criteria for the permanency plan. 4 Since father failed to make this specific argument to the circuit court, we will not consider it. Rule 5A:18. See T ackett, 62 Va. App. at 315.

4 Father acknowledges in his brie f to this Court that his incarc eration prevented him from being reunited with S.W.- 8 - Accordingly, the circuit cour t did not err in terminating fath er’s parental rights and approving the goal of adoption.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s ruling is summar ily affirmed. Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.