COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Beales, Russell and Senior Judge Frank 

FELICIA ELIZABETH FEASTER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0140-16-3 PER CURIAM 

 MAY 24, 2016 

HARRISONBURG ROCKINGHAM 

 SOCIAL SERVICES DISTRICT 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY 

Thomas J. Wilson, IV, Judge 

 (Avery B. Cousins, III; Cousins Law Offices, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 (Rachel Errett Figura, Assistant County Attorney; Hallet M. 

Culbreth, Guardian ad litem for the minor child; Rockingham 

County Attorney’s Office, on brief), for appellee. 

 *

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

 Felicia Elizabeth Feaster (mother) appeals an order terminating her parental rights to her 

child, H.M. Mother argues that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights to H.M. 

because the Harrisonburg Rockingham Social Services District (the Department) “did not provide 

her with sufficient time or the reasonable and appropriate services as required under Va. Code 

§ 16.1-283(C)(2).” Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we summarily affirm the 

decision of the trial court pursuant to Rule 5A:27. 

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, 463 (1991). 

UNPUBLISHED 
 - 2 - 

 The Department had been involved with mother since she entered foster care at age ten. 

She had been in multiple foster care homes and residential treatment facilities. She was 

diagnosed with mood disorder and anxiety disorder, and she has a history of marijuana and 

alcohol abuse. When mother reached the age of eighteen in 2009, she left the foster care system. 

 In January 2012, mother gave birth to H.M., the child who is the subject of this appeal. 

Sheldon Mongold is the biological father of H.M. The parents agreed to joint legal custody and 

shared physical custody. Mother did not have permanent housing, so she resided in motels, with 

friends, or in shelters. Father also did not have permanent housing and frequently worked out of 

town. When he was in town, he resided in motels, with friends, or with his parents. In 2012, the 

Department investigated a supervision concern and told father that the paternal grandparents 

should not be providing child care due to their physical and mental limitations. The Department 

remained involved with the family and investigated concerns regarding supervision, exposure to 

drug use, lack of housing, and medical neglect. 

 In June 2013, mother gave birth to another child, J.F.1

 J.F. had medical problems that 

required hospitalization. In July 2013, the Department learned that mother’s boyfriend, not 

H.M.’s father, manufactured and sold methamphetamines. The Department offered services to 

mother, but she refused the services. 

 In December 2013, the Department learned that mother was staying at the Valley Mission 

shelter, where she had received fifteen “write-ups” in seventeen days. Although the shelter 

required parents to remain with their children at all times, mother repeatedly left H.M. with 

random people in the shelter. 

 On May 3, 2014, there was a domestic violence incident between mother and her then 

boyfriend, not H.M.’s father. As a result, J.F. was removed from mother’s custody and placed in 

 1

 H.M.’s father is not the biological father of J.F. 
 - 3 - 

foster care. Father had custody of H.M. at the time, but left the child with his parents when he 

went out of town to work. The Department opened a supervision investigation and again advised 

father that the paternal grandparents were not suitable caregivers due to their mental and physical 

health problems. Father told the Department that he did not have other child care options. The 

Department paid the processing fee for father to place the child in Harrisonburg-Rockingham 

Day Care, but father never used those day care services. 

 In June 2014, the Department learned that the child again was left in the care of the 

paternal grandparents. Father was working out of town, so mother took the child. On June 18, 

2014, mother was asked to leave the domestic violence shelter where she was staying. Mother 

went to the Department to discuss her plans, but she was unable to provide housing for her and 

H.M. The Department contacted father, who arranged for mother to stay in a hotel for the night. 

On June 19, 2014, the Department checked on mother and H.M. Mother had no plans for 

housing, employment or transportation. The Department could not reach father. Finding no 

viable options for H.M., the Department removed the child and placed him in foster care. 

 At the preliminary removal hearing, both parents submitted to drug screens. Mother 

tested positive for marijuana, and father tested positive for methamphetamines. On July 23, 

2014, the Harrisonburg/Rockingham County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (the 

JDR court) found H.M. to be an abused and/or neglected child. The Department offered mother 

supervised visitation, but imposed several requirements on her. She was directed to obtain and 

maintain stable employment, housing, and transportation and to ensure H.M. was able to keep 

medical appointments. In addition, mother was required to participate in substance abuse 

treatment and demonstrate a commitment to sobriety, and she had to take parenting classes and 

partake in a monthly parenting group. 
 - 4 - 

 To assist mother in fulfilling these requirements, the Department referred her to 

Harrisonburg-Rockingham Community Services Board (CSB) for a substance abuse assessment. 

Although mother signed up for treatment through CSB, she did not complete the program. The 

Department also referred mother for a psychological assessment, which mother eventually 

completed even though she missed or was late to numerous appointments. The Department 

referred mother to a monthly parenting group and parenting classes, but she did not complete 

them. The Department also referred mother to the Virginia Employment Commission 

Workforce Center. The Department assisted mother with placement in temporary shelters and 

recommended that mother register with the housing authority. 

 On May 1, 2015, the Department filed petitions to terminate father’s and mother’s 

parental rights. On August 12, 2015, the JDR court terminated father’s and mother’s parental 

rights to H.M.2

 Both parents appealed to the circuit court. 

 On October 27, 2015, the parties appeared before the circuit court. At the hearing, 

mother testified that she recently re-enrolled with CSB, but had not started the group sessions 

yet. She still did not have stable housing. She indicated that she was working two or three days 

per week. She admitted that she was unable to care for H.M. at the time. After hearing the 

evidence and argument, the trial court took the matter under advisement. On October 29, 2015, 

the trial court issued its ruling from the bench and found that it was in the child’s best interests to 

terminate both parents’ parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). The trial court 

entered orders memorializing its rulings. This appeal followed.3

 2

 In June 2015, mother gave birth to another child, C.M. H.M.’s father is not the 

biological father of C.M. The JDR court entered a preliminary child protective order for C.M. on 

September 30, 2015. 

3

 Father also appealed the circuit court’s decision to terminate his parental rights. See 

Mongold v. Harrisonburg Rockingham Soc. Servs. Dist., Record No. 1796-15-3. 
 - 5 - 

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) 

(citation 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. 

 Mother argues that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights pursuant to Code 

§ 16.1-283(C)(2). Mother contends the Department failed to allow her sufficient time to comply 

with the Department’s requirements and did not provide her with adequate services to remedy 

the situation that led to the child being placed in foster care. 

 A court may terminate parental rights if: 

The 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. 

Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). 

 “‘Reasonable and appropriate’ efforts can only be judged with reference to the 

circumstances of a particular case. Thus, a court must determine what constitutes reasonable and 

appropriate efforts given the facts before the court.” Ferguson v. Stafford Cty. Dep’t of Soc. 

Servs., 14 Va. App. 333, 338, 417 S.E.2d 1, 4 (1992). 

 Mother failed to obtain stable housing and has a history of substance abuse. The 

Department assisted her in finding temporary shelters, but mother asserts that the Department 

should have done more for her, such as contacting and securing public housing for her. Mother 
 - 6 - 

also acknowledges that the Department instructed her to enroll at CSB for drug counseling, but 

contends the Department should have referred her to more comprehensive drug rehabilitation 

services. 

 Despite mother’s arguments, the evidence proved that the Department offered mother 

numerous services. Mother did not participate in or complete many of the recommended 

services. “The Department is not required ‘to force its services upon an unwilling or 

disinterested parent.’” Logan, 13 Va. App. at 130, 409 S.E.2d at 463-64 (quoting Barkey v. 

Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 662, 670, 347 S.E.2d 188, 192 (1986)). 

 When mother initially completed the intake at CSB in November 2014, a case manager 

was assigned to assist her. Her case manager could have helped with finding housing, filling out 

housing applications, and completing employment applications. Mother’s CSB case was closed, 

however, for non-compliance and failure to attend appointments. At the final hearing, mother 

testified that she recently re-enrolled at CSB. 

 In addition, in June 2015, the Department assisted mother in securing a place at Mercy 

House, a shelter that assists residents with finding employment, saving money for housing, and 

obtaining financial assistance for housing. Mother was evicted from Mercy House in September 

2015 after she and her then boyfriend, not H.M.’s father, had an altercation. 

 The Department also referred mother to Dr. Joann Grayson for a psychological and 

parenting evaluation. Although mother completed the psychological assessment, Dr. Grayson 

determined that there would be “significant challenges” in working with mother because mother 

was “‘tired’ of therapy and does not want to engage with providers.” Dr. Grayson noted that 

mother had “considerable difficulty” in keeping appointments and lacked initiative and skills to 

plan ahead. 
 - 7 - 

 In addition, the Department referred mother to parenting classes, which she did not 

complete. She did not attend the recommended monthly parenting group. She did not follow 

through with individual counseling. 

 At the circuit court hearing in October 2015, mother admitted she was not in a position to 

have custody of the child at that time, and she asked for additional time to improve her situation. 

By this time, however, H.M. had been in foster care for sixteen months. “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 Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1990). 

 Based on the totality of the circumstances, the trial court did not err in finding that 

mother was unwilling or unable to remedy substantially, within a twelve-month period, the 

conditions that resulted in H.M.’s foster care placement, and therefore did not err in terminating 

mother’s parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ruling is summarily affirmed. Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.