COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judg e Fitzpatrick, Judges Frank and Clements

R. W. AND P. W. MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1313-03-1 PER CURIAM NOVEMBER 25, 2003 CHESAPEAKE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE Frederick H. Creekmore, Judge (James E. Short; Roy, Larsen, Romm & Lascara, P.C., on brief), for appellants. (John E. Oliver, Deputy City At torney, on brief), for appellee. (Richard L. Buyrn, on brief), Guardian ad litem , for the infant children.
R.W. (father) and P.W. 1 (mother) (collectively “parents”) a ppeal a decision of the trial court terminating their parental rights to their two sons, R. and D., pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). On appeal, parents contend the trial court erred by: (1) finding the evid ence was sufficient to terminate their parental rights; (2) finding that th e termination of their parental rights was in the children’s best interests; and (3) determining that R. was not of th e age of discretion pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(G). Upon review ing the record and briefs of the part ies, we conclude this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summ arily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.

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

1 We refer to the parties by initials only to protect the identities of the children.- 2 - BACKGROUND We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the pr evailing party below and grant to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Logan v. Fairfax County Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 46 0, 462 (1991). R. was born in 1989, and D. wa s born in 1994. Th e children came into the custody of the Chesapeake Department of Human Services (CDHS ) on January 28, 1999 upon petitions filed by CDHS alleging that the children we re abused and neglected by thei r parents. The child protective services unit had learned of R. earlier that month when staff at Maryview Behavioral Health Center reported to CDHS that R. had been admitted to the facili ty based upon a report from parents that he had threatened to kill hims elf and others, including his younger brot her. R. attacked his mother and hospital staff during the intake process. Parents removed R. from the hospita l the next day despite the fact that the ho spital staff still cons idered him to be a risk to himself and othe rs. CDHS also learned that R. had been hospitaliz ed by his parents for several days in 1998. At that time, parents also removed R. from hospital care against the advice of hospital staff. While in public school, R. displayed a pattern of aggressive acting out and self-destructive behaviors. He threw furniture, kicked and punche d walls, banged his head on furniture and cursed in class. He was once physically restrained because of his physicalaggression. Parents blamed R.’s behavioral problems on his teachers. Mother was often hostile and belligerent with school staff, screaming at them on th e telephone or during meetings. Parent s rejected several placements for R. in education programs designed to assist children with severe behavioral problems. Instead they insisted that R. be moved to an other public school wher e the same pattern of behavior was repeated. At one point, an individual was assigned to R. for one-on-one supervision, and R. physically attacked this person. Meanwhile, parents were uncooperati ve and openly hostile with school officials and R. was eventu ally suspended from school.- 3 - In January 1999, a child protective services worker visited the parents’ home. The home was in “shambles” with clothes, partially eaten food, an d trash strewn on the floors. D. was very dirty, and both boys had an od or about them. Whilethe worker tried to interview mother, R. repeatedly interrupted the conversation, cursed, and threatened to kill the wo rker, his mother and his brother. Parents displayed no control over R.’s behavior. At that time , they acknow ledged R.’s history of acting out, but stated that they were not goi ng to act on any of the recommendations from school or mental health professionals because th ese professionals had lied to them and had not been helpful. Mother also indicated that the family had moved over twenty times during the children’s lives and had been involved with various mental health professionals. When D. was four years old and was enrolled in pre-school, hewas not potty trained and the school had to purchase diapers for him despite repeated requests to parents to provide diapers. School staff also reported that D. had poor hygiene a nd poor social skills. Mother was hostile and belligerent with D.’s schoo l staff, and she refused to provide information to them concerning D.’s immunization history. For the first eight months the children were in foster care, parents declined to cooperate with CDHS. They refused to give to CDHS immunization information ab out the children and a medical device to treat D.’s as thmatic condition. Parent s refused to provide in formation on where they were living, whether they were employed, and wh ether they were engaged in any of the services ordered by the court. They refuse d to provide releases to enable workers to contact their therapist. They declined to participate in a parenting assess ment at a child abuse cent er and complained about the staff at the facility where R. was residing. R. resided in Maryview from January until March 1999. While there, he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder mixed with psychotic features, post-traumatic stress disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Psychological testing indicated that he was depressed, had poor- 4 - emotional control, and had poorly developed psyc hological coping systems. Other tests showed R. responded to stimuli with aggre ssion and he was not able to function in a “normal” school environment. R. has resided in various residen tial centers for emotionally disturbed children since he was removed from parents’ custody. D. was placed in a foster home wh ere he had difficulty adjusting to the rout ine of family life. In 1999, CDHS and parents agreed to a plan to attempt to return D. to parents’ home. The in-home services of the Barry Robinson Center (BRC) were engaged to provide services to the family, to supervise visits with D., and to assess the suitability of parents’ home for sa fe placement of D. there. Parents failed to cooper ate with the in-home workers and were hostile and angry towards them. Mother denied that the family had any problems , and she yelled at or ignored the service workers. The in-home services workers saw a “p rimitive” pattern of interaction between parents and D., including limited communication, no “limit-setting,” and a “very low indication of attachment.” They also noted that parents failed to adequately supervise D. or to be aware of his safety needs. The in-home services program conc luded that the family home was “not a suitable environment” for D. and that parents were “not in a condition to recei ve him into the home.” In February 2000, the Chesapeake Juvenile and DomesticRelations District Court (JDR court) held a hearing on the abuse and neglect pe tition filed by CDHS. The JDR court ad judged the children to be abused and neglected, and it continued temporary legal custody of the children with CDHS. For several months prior to the hearing, parents had refuse d to give CDHS their telephone number, refused to cooper ate with CDHS, and deni ed that they had any “problems” to work on. CDHS provided parents with a foster care plan, which listed numerous matters that parents needed to address in order to have the children retu rned to their custody, including coming to an understanding about their children’s conditions an d needs, demonstrating a capacity to interact appropriately with others, and maintaining cont act with CDHS.- 5 - In May 2000, parents provided information to CDHS concerning father’s employment and their home address. Wh en a CDHS worker tried to visit th e home, mother refu sed to allow her inside. CDHS also resumed superv ised visits between parents and D. at the offices of CDHS. The visits were suspended when parent s failed to comply with the term s established for the visits and were verbally abusive to the CDHS worker. The visits were then sc heduled to be held at the office of D.’s therapist, but parents failed to follow through with the arrangements. In 2000, Dr. Susan Garvey, a licensed clinical psychologist, performed evaluations of parents. Dr. Garvey diagnosed mother with “s ignificant psychopathology” which is chronic and ingrained and which impairs her emotional, behavi oral and interpersonal fu nctioning. Mother also has numerous health problems. Dr. Garvey found that father exhibited “significant clinical psychopathology” that interfered with his functioning. Dr. Garvey stated that father told her he believed social services was conspiring to take th eir children and that he and mother did nothing to cause the children to be remove d from the home. Dr. Garvey fo und that both parents exhibited paranoia and cognitive delusions co ncerning the removal of the ch ildren from their home. She opined that their prognosis for im provement is poor. She also indicated that, because parents believe they have done nothing wrong and that they are not part of th e problem, they are not motivated to change. Dr. Garvey observed D. interact with his parents. She saw an “anxious attachment” between D. and both pare nts. D. maintained physical distan ce from mother, and there was a lack of spontaneity in their communication. D. played alone during most of the half-hour visit. Based upon her testing, observations and review of psychologi cal evaluations by Dr. Ge rstle, a licensed clinical psychologist who had worked with the family, Dr. Garvey recomme nded that the children not be returned to parents’ custody.- 6 - In 2001, the JDR court terminated parents’ parental rights and awarded custody of the children to CHDS with the authority to place them for adoption. Parents appealed to the trial court, which held several eviden tiary hearings in 2002. Pursuant to the trial court’s re quest, Dr. Garvey updated the ev aluation of the family that she had conducted in 2000. Dr. Garvey again interviewed parents and consulted their records with other treating doctors and therapis ts. She consulted with Dr. Gerstle, who agreed with Dr. Garvey’s assessment of parents’ personality and parenting fu nctioning. However, Dr . Gerstle disagreed with Dr. Garvey’s recommendation that the court term inate parental rights. Dr. Gerstle opined that parents need “intensive treatment” in order to be come appropriate parents. He believes parents acknowledge their need fo r treatment and have beco me “less intrusive” to their children over the two-and-one-half years he had work ed with them. However, Dr. Gers tle also indicated that parents had not improved in terms of taki ng responsibility for their role in the family’s situation and they continue to see themselves as victims of the courts and CDHS concerning the removal of the children from their home. The BRC staff reported to Dr. Garvey that th ey had difficulties wi th parents concerning visitation with R. R. often became agitated and up set after the visits, so the visits were discontinued. Mother accused the BRC sta ff of inappropriate and abusive behavior. In Dr. Garvey’s latest interview with moth er, she found mother “more subdued” and in better physical health. Howeve r, Dr. Garvey again saw evidence of mother’s paranoid and delusional thinking and “rigidity,” which were the bases for Dr. Garvey’s re commendation that mother’s parental rights be terminated. Parents acknowledged to Dr. Garvey that they would need “transition assistance” if th e children returned home, but they continued to deny that they have any problems that contributed to the removal of the chil dren. Dr. Garvey opined that parents continue to- 7 - have “severe difficulties” in th eir emotional and interp ersonal functioning th at would render them inappropriate parents to the children. At the time of the trial court’ s 2002 hearings, the children had been in foster care for almost four years. D. had been in fost er care for almost one-half of his life, and he was living in his fourth placement, a therapeutic fo ster home. Early in his foster care placement, D. exhibited problems with aggression and an inability to follow instructions. He require s a high level of structure and supervision, but his behavior has improved while he has been in the struct ured environment of the therapeutic foster home. At the time of the trial court hearings, R. was living at a residential tr eatment center. Molly Stoner, a licensed clinical social worker and treat ment administrator at R.’s residential placement center, reported that R. has “a pretty significant impairment with his cognitive functioning” and has difficulty managing impulsivity and anger outburst s. R.’s performance I.Q. is in the borderline range of functioning, and he has “v ery little insight” into how his actions affect others. R., who was thirteen years old at the time of the trial court hearing, expressed a desire to “get back” to his “whole family.” When asked why he want ed to return home, R. stated he could get better care at home, such as new clothes, food and a goo d bed. Stoner testified that R. ha s the maturity level of a nine or ten year old. Stoner also stated that her goal fo r R. is to transition him to a foster home, but the foster family would have to beexperienced with ch ildren with deve lopmental delays, emotional disturbances and significant impairments. Mother testified that she has been working with Dr. Gerstle sinc e January 1999 and she takes medications prescribed by a psychiatrist. Sh e stated that she was a “m onster” in the past, but she would like to work w ith CDHS to get her “lif e back.” She apologized for her past failures to cooperate with CDHS, and she stated that she now recognizes that she has problems. Mother testified that she is in better control over her em otions, but she needs more therapy and has “years to- 8 - go.” Mother also st ated that she would have to work with the authoritie s in order to provide for the children’s needs. Father acknowledged that parents had made mistakes in the past, he plans to continue in therapy, and he believes parent s could work well with CDHS in the future. The guardian ad litem , who had been involved with the family sinc e January 1999, recommended that the trial court terminate the parentalrights of both parents. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the children were neglected by parents prior to their removal from the home, ca using the infliction of “severe mental and psychological injury” to the childre n. The court also ruled that R. is not a person of discretion pursuant to Code § 16.1-283 (G). The trial court found that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate the parental rights, and it found no just cause for parents’ failure to remedy, within the twelve-month period, the conditions leading to the removal of th e children or their failure to cooperate with CDHS. ANALYSIS “In matters of a child’s welfare, trial courts are vested with broad discretion in making the decisions necessary to guard and to foster a child’s best interests.” Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 328, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990). On appeal, we presume that the trial court “thoroughly weighed all the evidence, considered the statutory requirements, and madeits determination based on the child’s best interests.” Id. at 32 9, 387 S.E.2d at 796. Furthermore, “[w]here, as here, the trial court heard the evidence ore tenus , its finding is entitled to great weight and w ill not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Martin v. Pittsylvania County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15 , 20, 348 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1986). The trial court terminated parental rights to the children pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C), which provides in pertinent part: The residual parental rights of a parent or parents of a child placed in foster care as a result of court commitment, . . . may be- 9 - terminated if the court finds, based upon clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interests of the child and that:

******* 2. 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 c onditions which led to or required continuation of the child’s foster care placement, notwithstanding the reasonable and appropriate e fforts of social, medical, mental health or other rehabilitative agenci es to such end. Proof that the parent or parents, without good cause, have failed or been unable to make substantial progress towards elimination of the conditions which led to or required conti nuation of the child’s foster care placement in accordance with th eir obligations under and within the time limits or goals set forth in a foster care plan filed with the court or any other plan jointly de signed and agreed to by the parent or parents and a public or private social, medical, mental health or other rehabilitative agency shall constitute prima facie evidence of this condition. The court shall take into consideration the prior efforts of such agencies to rehabi litate the parent or parents prior to the placement of the child in foster care. The evidence, viewed in the li ght most favorable to CDHS, pr oved by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) CDHS made “reasonable and appropriate efforts” to help parents remedy the conditions “which led to or requir ed continuation of the [children’s] foster ca re placement” and (2) parents, “without good cau se” were “unwilling or una ble within a reas onable period of time not to exceed twelve months” fro m the date of placement in foster care, failed “to substantially remedy” those conditions. Co de § 16.1-283(C)(2). For the most part, parent s did not cooperate with CDHS over the almost four years the children have been in foster care. Alth ough they now say they recognize that they contributed to the situation resulting in the removal of the children, the evidence shows that parents lack the skills and ability to meet th e specialized needs of the children. Indeed, parents admitted that they will need a great deal of assistance should the children be returned to their home.- 10 - Pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), CDHS presented prima facie evidence that parents “without good cause, have failed or been unable to make subs tantial progress to wards elimination of the conditions which led to or required continuation of [the children]’s foster care placement in accordance with their obligations un der and within the time limits or goals set forth in [the] foster care plan[s] filed with the court.” Id. Moreover, parents did not rebut that prima facie evidence. Therefore, the evidentiary requirements of C ode § 16.1-283(C)(2) had been met, and the trial court’s findings and judgment were not plainly wrong or without evid ence to support them. In addition, the evidence supports the finding th at the termination is in the best interests of the children. Evidence showed that D.’s behavior has improved while he has been in a structured environment and that he may be adopted by a fam ily. R. continues to need intensive residential care, but the long term goalfor him is to be placed in a foster home. Over the four years since the boys were placed in foster care, parents havedemonstrated little understanding of the needs of these children. “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. Dep’t of Soc. Se rvs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1990). Last, the trial court did not err in finding that R. is not of the age of discretion pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(G). The ev idence showed that R. wa s thirteen years old at the time of the hearing and that he had the maturity level of a nine or ten year old. His I.Q. is borderline functional, and he has significant impairment of his cognitive functioning. Accordingly, the evid ence supports the trial court’s ruling. For these reasons, the d ecision of the trial cour t is summarily affirmed. Affirmed.