COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judg es Elder, Bray and Senior Judge Overton

MARTHA ANN PERKINS MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 10 80-01-3 PER CURIAM SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 LYNCHBURG DIVI SION OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG Mosby G. Perrow, III, Judge (G. Beth Packert, on briefs), for appellant. Appellant submitting on briefs. (Joyce M. Coleman, Senior Assistant City Attorney, on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Martha Ann Perkins (mother) appeals th e decision of the circuit court term inating her resi dual parental rights in her children, Leroy Raymond Perkins and Thomas Henry Hosa nna Perkins. On appeal, mother cont ends the trial court erred in finding the evidence sufficient to terminate her parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(B). Mother asks that the judg ment of the trial court be vacated and her pare ntal rights restored. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of th e parties, we co nclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decisi on of the trial

court.On appeal, we view the evidence and all the re asonable inferences in th e light most favorable to appellee as the party prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire , 10 Va. App. 248, 250, 391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990). Background Social worker Rebe cca Neilans be gan providing ongoing child protective services fo r Leroy in 1997, after receiving co mplaints that the child suffer ed from inadequate shelter. Neilans testified that during the twenty-seven months she worked with mother and her family , they moved seven ti mes without notifying her. Neilans explained mother repeatedly denied her access to the family's residences an d that each time Neil ans visited, she noted trash piled outsid e the houses. Mother refused to speak with Neilans and would not cooperate with the social wo rker's efforts to establish a servic e plan. While mother was pregnant with Thomas, she accept ed aid from Neilans, bu t cut off co ntact soon after the child' s birth in February 1998. In April 1999, after trying for four months to enter mother's residence, Neilans en tered the house. Inside she discovered boxes, papers, and clot hing piled high throug hout the residence. Clothing and other item s were piled within inches of the wood stove used to he at the home. Shortly ther eafter, the fa mily moved to a different ho use. Similarly, the new house containe d piles of trash and clothi ng. Neilans testifie d the house had no refrigerator. Mother announced her pl ans to move to Pennsylvania

- 2 -to be close to the ch ildren's father, a co nvicted sex offender, who had previously committed sodomy upon a young bo y. Mother's mother admitted to Ne ilans that mother had recently to ld her she was going to the stor e and did not re turn for thre e weeks. The Lynchburg Division of So cial Services (LDSS) filed a petition for a protecti ve order on March 17, 1999 and a petition for emergency remo val on June 16, 1999. Neilans ex plained mother failed to enroll in parenting clas ses, did not coop erate with LDSS and failed to take Thomas to the doctor for his im munizations. After LDSS removed the children from mo ther's home, social worker Sally Barca took over the case. She attempted to establish a stable visitation sc hedule, re-estab lish Medicaid attending, enroll mother in pare nting classes, and ha ve mother undergo a psychological ev aluation. Dr. James An derson performed the psychological ev aluation, but mo ther failed to complete the parenting classe s. Barca was unable to esta blish regular visitation between mo ther and her children . Due to mother's incarceration, the first visit oc curred on Octo ber 23, 1999. Barca noted that mother avoided the ch ildren during the visit and that Leroy appeared fr ightened of mo ther. Barca attempted to counsel mother about what she would need to do in order to regain custody of her children , but mother became an gry and left. Mother failed to attend a vi sit scheduled fo r November 6, 1999, and she did not ask for any mo re visits until af ter LDSS filed for termination in Februa ry 2000. When Barc a visited mother's
- 3 -residence on May 2, 20 00, she found tr ash, furniture and shopping carts scattered ou tside the house. Inside, she fo und trash bags and clothing spread ab out and detected a strong odor of garbage. Dr. Anderson qualif ied as an expert an d testified about his evaluation of mo ther. He explai ned she showed li ttle ability to communicate wi th children at an age ap propriate leve l and showed no ability to identify children's feelings. He found that mother has very little unders tanding about ho w to handle child rearing situations, including recognizing developmen tal needs and potentially se rious medical prob lems. Dr. Anders on felt it was unlikely mother could respond to education or training to improve her parenting skil ls. In 1991, mo ther's parental rights in her four older children were terminated. The guardian ad litem for Leroy and Thomas suppor ted LDSS's petitions that termination of parental rights would be in the chil dren's best in terests. ANALYSIS In pertinent pa rt, Code § 16.1-2 83(B) provides: The residual parental rights of a parent or parents of a child found by the court to be neglected or abused and placed in foster care as a result of (i) court commitment; (ii) an entrustment agreement entered into by the parent or parents; or (iii) other voluntary relinquishment by the parent or parents may be terminated if the court finds, based upon clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interests of the child and that: 1. The neglect or abuse suffered by such child presented a serious and substantial threat to his life, health or development; and

- 4 -2. It is not reasonably likely that the conditions which resulted in such neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected or eliminated so as to allow the child's safe return to his parent or parents within a reasonable period of time. In making this determination, the court shall take into consideration the efforts made to rehabilitate the parent or parents by any public or private social, medical, mental health or other rehabilitative agencies prior to the child's initial placement in foster care. The trial cour t found that Leroy and Thomas were neglected and placed into fo ster care as a result of mother's neglect, that the neglect represented a substantia l and serious th reat to their life, health, and development, th at it was unli kely that the conditions which brough t the children into ca re could su fficiently be corrected to allow them to return home, and that the termination was in the best interests of the children. "Where the trial court hears the evidence ore tenus , its decision is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." Roanoke City Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Heide , 35 Va. App. 328, 336, 544 S.E.2d 890, 894 (2001). Mother failed to maintain a safe environment for her children. Her residences over the years were consistently littered with trash and clothing. In one home these items were piled next to a wood burning stove. In another residence the family did not have a working refrigerator and the social worker observed dirty clothes throughout the kitchen. Mother failed to

- 5 -keep Thomas' immunization shots current and had not been providing him with basic medical care. The trial court did not err in finding that the children were neglected in such a way that endangered their life, health and development. Code § 16.1-283(B)(2)(c) provides that prima facie evidence of the conditions set forth in subsection (B)(2) exists when there is proof that the parent, "without good cause, [has] not responded to or followed through with appropriate, available and reasonable rehabilitative efforts on the part of social, medical, mental health or other rehabilitative agencies designed to . . . prevent the neglect of the child." Mother failed to achieve any goals or effect any changes. She was uncooperative and avoided the social workers. She failed to maintain contact with her children and allowed her Medicaid and other benefits to lapse. The testimony of Dr. Anderson indicated that mother was unlikely and unwilling to correct the problems that led to the neglect of her children. The trial court, faced with the facts contained in this record, was justified in finding that the children were not likely to be returned to mother within a reasonable period of time. Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed. Affirmed.

- 6 -