COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior 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 appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad 

litem submitting on brief. 

 On April 13, 2007, the trial court entered an order terminating the parental rights of Richard 

Brian Keith (appellant) to his daughters, S.K. and D.K. The trial court found clear and convincing 

evidence proved the circumstances required for termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) and 

(2). On appeal, appellant challenges the proof of conditions necessary for termination pursuant to 

Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). Appellant also contends the evidence was insufficient to prove the 

circumstances required for termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B). Finding no error, we 

affirm. 

 “[C]lear and convincing evidence that the termination [of residual parental rights] is in 

the child’s best interests is a requirement in common to termination of parental rights under Code 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion 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 interests of the child is “the paramount 

consideration of a trial court” in a termination proceeding, Logan 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 residual parental rights,” City 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 terminated if the court finds that 

[t]he parent [has] . . . , without good cause, failed to maintain 

continuing contact with and to provide or substantially plan for the 

future of the child for a period of six months after the child’s 

placement in foster care notwithstanding the reasonable and 

appropriate efforts of social, medical, mental health or other 

rehabilitative agencies to communicate 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 reasonable period of time not to exceed twelve 

months from the date the child was placed in foster 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 parent appealed to this Court from the 

trial court’s decision to terminate her parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) and 

Code § 16.1-283(E)(i). On appeal, she contended the evidence did not support the termination 

under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), but she did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain 

the termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(E)(i). This Court 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 terminations pursuant to Code 

§ 16.1-283(C)(1). Appellant’s failure to challenge the terminations under Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) 

renders moot his claim regarding the terminations 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.