COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Bray and Senior Judge Overton 

MARTHA ANN PERKINS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 1080-01-3 PER CURIAM 

 SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 

LYNCHBURG DIVISION 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 the decision of the 

circuit court terminating her residual parental rights in her 

children, Leroy Raymond Perkins and Thomas Henry Hosanna Perkins. 

On appeal, mother contends the trial court erred in finding the 

evidence sufficient to terminate her parental rights under Code 

§ 16.1-283(B). Mother asks that the judgment of the trial court 

be vacated and her parental rights restored. Upon reviewing the 

record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is 

without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial 

court. 
 On appeal, we view the evidence and all the reasonable 

inferences in the 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 Rebecca Neilans began providing ongoing child 

protective services for Leroy in 1997, after receiving complaints 

that the child suffered from inadequate shelter. Neilans 

testified that during the twenty-seven months she worked with 

mother and her family, they moved seven times without notifying 

her. Neilans explained mother repeatedly denied her access to the 

family's residences and that each time Neilans visited, she noted 

trash piled outside the houses. Mother refused to speak with 

Neilans and would not cooperate with the social worker's efforts 

to establish a service plan. While mother was pregnant with 

Thomas, she accepted aid from Neilans, but cut off contact soon 

after the child's birth in February 1998. 

 In April 1999, after trying for four months to enter mother's 

residence, Neilans entered the house. Inside she discovered 

boxes, papers, and clothing piled high throughout the residence. 

Clothing and other items were piled within inches of the wood 

stove used to heat the home. Shortly thereafter, the family moved 

to a different house. Similarly, the new house contained piles of 

trash and clothing. Neilans testified the house had no 

refrigerator. Mother announced her plans to move to Pennsylvania 

- 2 -
to be close to the children's father, a convicted sex offender, 

who had previously committed sodomy upon a young boy. Mother's 

mother admitted to Neilans that mother had recently told her she 

was going to the store and did not return for three weeks. 

 The Lynchburg Division of Social Services (LDSS) filed a 

petition for a protective order on March 17, 1999 and a petition 

for emergency removal on June 16, 1999. Neilans explained mother 

failed to enroll in parenting classes, did not cooperate with LDSS 

and failed to take Thomas to the doctor for his immunizations. 

 After LDSS removed the children from mother's home, social 

worker Sally Barca took over the case. She attempted to establish 

a stable visitation schedule, re-establish Medicaid attending, 

enroll mother in parenting classes, and have mother undergo a 

psychological evaluation. Dr. James Anderson performed the 

psychological evaluation, but mother failed to complete the 

parenting classes. Barca was unable to establish regular 

visitation between mother and her children. Due to mother's 

incarceration, the first visit occurred on October 23, 1999. 

Barca noted that mother avoided the children during the visit and 

that Leroy appeared frightened of mother. Barca attempted to 

counsel mother about what she would need to do in order to regain 

custody of her children, but mother became angry and left. Mother 

failed to attend a visit scheduled for November 6, 1999, and she 

did not ask for any more visits until after LDSS filed for 

termination in February 2000. When Barca visited mother's 

- 3 -
residence on May 2, 2000, she found trash, furniture and shopping 

carts scattered outside the house. Inside, she found trash bags 

and clothing spread about and detected a strong odor of garbage. 

 Dr. Anderson qualified as an expert and testified about his 

evaluation of mother. He explained she showed little ability to 

communicate with children at an age appropriate level and showed 

no ability to identify children's feelings. He found that mother 

has very little understanding about how to handle child rearing 

situations, including recognizing developmental needs and 

potentially serious medical problems. Dr. Anderson felt it was 

unlikely mother could respond to education or training to improve 

her parenting skills. In 1991, mother's parental rights in her 

four older children were terminated. The guardian ad litem for 

Leroy and Thomas supported LDSS's petitions that termination of 

parental rights would be in the children's best interests. 

ANALYSIS

 In pertinent part, Code § 16.1-283(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 court found that Leroy and Thomas were neglected 

and placed into foster care as a result of mother's neglect, that 

the neglect represented a substantial and serious threat to their 

life, health, and development, that it was unlikely that the 

conditions which brought the children into care could sufficiently 

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 -