COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Seni or Judge Bumgardner

BRIAN R. KEITH, SOMETIMES KNOWN AS RICHARD BRIAN KEITH MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0981-07-3 PER CURIAM OCTOBER 2, 2007 ROANOKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE Jonathan M. Apgar, Judge (Melvin L. Hill; Ware & Hill, L.L.P., on brief) , for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. (William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Heather P. Ferguson, Assistant City Attorney; L. Brad Braford, Guardian ad litem for the minor children, on brief), for ap pellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on brief.
On April 13, 2007, the trial c ourt entered an order terminating the parental rights of Richard Brian Keith (appellant) to his daug hters, S.K. and D.K. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence proved the circ umstances required for te rmination pursuant to Co de § 16.1-283(C)(1) and (2). On appeal, appellant challe nges the proof of conditions necessa ry for termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). Appell ant also contends the evidence was insufficient to prove the circumstances required fo r termination pursuant to Code § 16 .1-283(B). Finding no error, we affirm. “[C]lear and convincing evidence that the term ination [of residual parental rights] is in the child’s best interests is a requirement in co mmon to termination of parental rights under Code

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - § 16.1-283(B) [or] (C) . . . .” Fields v. Dinwiddie County Dep’t of Soc. Servs. , 46 Va. App. 1, 8 n.5, 614 S.E.2d 656, 659 n.5 (2005). While the best in terests of the child is “the paramount consideration of a trial court” in a termination proceeding, L ogan v. Fairfax County Dep’t of
Human Dev. , 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991), terminations under Code § 16.1-283(B) and the subsections of Code § 16. 1-283(C) provide distinct, “individual bases upon which a petitioner may seek to terminate resi dual parental rights,” C ity of Newport News v. Winslow , 40 Va. App. 556, 563, 580 S.E.2d 463, 466 (2003). Pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(1 ), a parent’s residual parental rights of a child placed in foster care may be terminat ed if the court finds that [t]he parent [has] . . . , without good cause, failed to maintain continuing contact with and to prov ide or substantially plan for the future of the child for a period of six months after the child’s placement in foster care notw ithstanding the reasonable and appropriate efforts of social, me dical, mental health or other rehabilitative agencies to communi cate with the parent . . . and to strengthen the parent-child relationship. Termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) requires proof that the parent, “without good cause, ha[s] been unwilling or unable within a re asonable period of time not to exceed twelve months from the date the child was placed in fo ster care to remedy substantially the conditions which led to or required continuation of the child’s foster care placement,” notwithstanding reasonable and appropriate efforts of services agencies. In Fields , 46 Va. App. at 3, 614 S.E.2d at 657, a pare nt appealed to this Court from the trial court’s decision to terminate her parent al rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) and Code § 16.1-283(E)(i). On app eal, she contended the evidence did not support the termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), but she did not challeng e the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the termination pursuant to C ode § 16.1-283(E)(i). This Cour t found that, in light of the unchallenged termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(E)(i), it was not required to consider the- 3 - sufficiency of the evidence to support the termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). Fields , 46 Va. App. at 8, 614 S.E.2d at 659. Likewise, appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support the terminations pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), but does not challenge the te rminations pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(1). Appellant’s failure to challe nge the terminations und er Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) renders moot his claim regarding the terminatio ns under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), and we need not consider it. 1 Accordingly, the trial court’s decisions are affirmed. Affirmed.

1 In addition, because the trial court did not terminate appellant’s parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B), we need not consider whether the evidence was sufficient to support such a termination.