COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Beales, Ru ssell and Senior Judge Frank

FELICIA ELIZAB ETH FEASTER MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0140-16-3 PER CURIAM MAY 24, 2016 HARRISONBURG ROCKINGHAM SOCIAL SERVICES DISTRICT

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY Thomas J. Wils on, IV, Judge (Avery B. Cousins, III; Cous ins Law Offices, on brief), for appellant. (Rachel Errett Figura, Assistan t County Attorn ey; 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 opin ion 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 terminat ing 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 servi ces 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 favor able 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UNPUBLISHED- 2 - The Department had been involved with mother since she entered foster care at age ten.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 diso rder, and she has a history of marijuana and

alcohol abuse. When mother reach ed the age of eighteen in 2009, she left the foster care system. In January 2012, mother gave birth to H.M., th e 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 ha ve 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 an d told father that the paternal grandparents should not be providing child care due to their p hysical and mental limitations. The Department remained involved with the family and investigat ed 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 Ju ly 2013, the Department learned that mother’s boyfriend, not H.M.’s father, manufactured and sold methampheta mines. 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 ope ned a supervision investigation and again advised father that the paternal grandpare nts 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 moth er took the child. On June 18, 2014, mother was asked to leave the domestic viol ence 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 mo ther and H.M. Mother had no plans for housing, employment or transportation. The Depa rtment 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 a nd 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 requireme nts on her. She was directed to obtain and maintain stable employment, housing, and transpor tation and to ensure H.M. was able to keep medical appointments. In addi tion, mother was required to pa rticipate in substance abuse

treatment and demonstrate a commitment to sobrie ty, 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 psychol ogical assessment, which mother eventually completed even though she missed or was late to numerous appointment s. 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 Em ployment Commission Workforce Center. The Department assisted moth er with placement in temporary shelters and recommended that mother register with the housing authority. On May 1, 2015, the Department filed petiti ons 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 befo re 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 tria l court took the matter under a dvisement. On October 29, 2015, the trial court issued its ruling fr om the bench and found that it was in the child’s best interests to terminate both parents’ parental rights pursu ant 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 anothe r child, C.M. H.M.’s father is not the biological father of C.M. The JDR court entere d a preliminary child protective order for C.M. on September 30, 2015.

3 Father also appealed the circuit court’s d ecision 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 en titled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unle ss plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Martin v. Pittsylvania Cty. Dep’t of So c. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20, 348 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1986) (citation omitted). When considering termin ation of parental ri ghts, “the paramount

consideration of a trial court is the child’s best interest s.” Logan, 13 Va. App. at 128, 409 S.E.2d

at 463. Mother argues that the trial court erred in te rminating her parental ri ghts 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 adequa te services to remedy

the situation that led to the ch ild 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 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. 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 c ourt must determine what constitutes reasonable and appropriate efforts given the fact s 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 a nd has a history of su bstance abuse. The Department assisted her in findi ng temporary shelters, but mother asserts that the Department should have done more for her, such as contactin g and securing public housing for her. Mother- 6 - also acknowledges that the Depart ment 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 pr oved that the Department offered mother numerous services. Mother did not particip ate in or complete many of the recommended services. “The Department is not require d ‘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 comp leted the intake at CSB in November 2014, a case manager was assigned to assist her. Her case manager co uld have helped with finding housing, filling out housing applications, and completi ng 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 a ssisted mother in s ecuring a place at Mercy House, a shelter that assists residents with finding employme nt, 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 complete d the psychological assessment, Dr. Grayson determined that there would be “significant cha llenges” in working with mother because mother was “‘tired’ of therapy and does not want to engage with provid ers.” 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 indivi dual 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 aske d for additional time to improve her s ituation. 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 ther efore did not err in terminating mother’s parental rights pur suant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2).

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

Affirmed.