COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Humphreys, O’Brien and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

CRYSTAL HAREFORD 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 1796-14-3 PER CURIAM 

 APRIL 7, 2015 

HARRISONBURG-ROCKINGHAM 

 SOCIAL SERVICES DISTRICT 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY 

Bruce D. Albertson, Judge 

 (Shelly R. James, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Rachel Errett Figura, Assistant County Attorney; W. Andrew 

Harding, Guardian ad litem for the minor child; Convy & Harding, 

PLC, on brief), for appellee. 

 *

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

 Crystal Hareford, mother, appeals a decision of the trial court terminating her parental rights 

to her minor child, K.H, pursuant to Code §§ 16.1-283(C)(2) and 16.1-283(E)(i). On appeal, mother 

contends the trial court erred in finding the Harrisonburg-Rockingham Social Services District 

(HRSSD) presented clear and convincing evidence that terminating her parental rights was 

appropriate and in K.H.’s best interests “when he was not in an adoptive placement and his contact 

with his mother was not a danger to him.” Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we 

conclude this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial 

court. See Rule 5A:27. 

 “[A] termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(E)(i) must be based upon clear and 

convincing evidence that the action is in the best interests of the child. See Code § 16.1-283(E). In 

addition, the trial court must find the parent’s rights to a sibling of the child previously had been 

UNPUBLISHED 
 - 2 - 

terminated. See Code § 16.1-283(E)(i).” Fields v. Dinwiddie Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 

Va. App. 1, 8, 614 S.E.2d 656, 659 (2005) (footnote omitted). 

 In determining what is in the best interests of a child, this Court has stated: 

a court must evaluate and consider many factors, including the age 

and physical and mental condition of the child or children; the age 

and physical and mental condition of the parents; the relationship 

existing between each parent and each child; the needs of the child 

or children; the role which each parent has played, and will play in 

the future, in the upbringing and care of the child or children; and 

such other factors as are necessary in determining the best interests 

of the child or children. 

Barkey v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 662, 668, 347 S.E.2d 188, 191 (1986). 

 K.H. was removed by HRSSD from the hospital shortly after his birth in January 2014. The 

termination hearing for K.H. was held on September 12, 2014, and the evidence was uncontested 

that mother’s parental rights to A.H., a sibling of K.H., were terminated on April 3, 2014. 

 In addition, clear and convincing evidence proved that termination was in the best interests 

of K.H. HRSSD had been involved with mother’s family since 2009. Mother made little progress 

in following through with services provided by HRSSD. In addition, mother was diagnosed with 

numerous mental and emotional disorders and she was identified as intellectually disabled. In 2013, 

a psychological evaluation indicated mother was at extremely high risk for child abuse. A 

psychologist opined that mother may be able to co-parent if another responsible adult was the 

primary caretaker of her children. HRSSD had provided mother with housing and support in a 

structured setting, but mother was twice removed from that environment due to rules violations. 

Thereafter, mother had difficulty maintaining housing and she moved frequently. Mother had 

limited employment. In addition, mother failed to progress past supervised visitation with K.H. 

Evidence was presented that K.H. is doing well in a foster home. 

 The trial court found clear and convincing evidence that HRSSD proved its case under Code 

§§ 16.1-283(C) and 16.1-283(E). The trial court found mother relied on others to take care of her 
 - 3 - 

problems and she lacked basic parenting skills. Her psychological testing indicated she has a low 

likelihood for change. She scored very low on a test for parent problem solving, and she appeared 

to be at a loss about how to interact with K.H. The trial court found this was a “chronic situation of 

inability” by mother. The court noted there were also issues with unsanitary living conditions in 

mother’s home. 

 Furthermore, “[i]t 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 [or her] 

responsibilities.” Kaywood v. Halifax Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 

492, 495 (1990). Thus, clear and convincing evidence proved that termination of mother’s parental 

rights was in the best interests of K.H. 

 In light of our conclusion that the termination under Code § 16.1-283(E)(i) should not be 

disturbed on appeal, we need not consider mother’s alternative argument that the evidence was 

insufficient to support termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). See Fields, 46 Va. App. at 8, 614 

S.E.2d at 659. We summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. 

 Affirmed.