COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Beales, Ru ssell and Senior Judge Frank

STEVEN CLIFTON PAGANS MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1373-16-3 PER CURIAM FEBRUARY 21, 2017 FRANKLIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF FRANKLIN COUNTY William N. Alexander, II, Judge (William Edward Cooley; Jona than Glenn Scott, Guardian ad litem for appellant, on brief), for appellant. Appellant and Guardian ad litem submitting on brief. (W. Colby Brown, on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief. (James P. Cargill, on brief), Guardian ad litem for the minor children. Guardian ad litem submitting on brief.
Steven Clifton Pagans (father) appeals an or der terminating his parental rights. Father argues that the trial court erred in terminating hi s parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B) because the Franklin County Department of Social Services (the Department) failed to prove by clear and convincing eviden ce that the “neglect or abuse suffered by the minor children presented a serious and substantial threat to [their lives,] . . . health or development an d it is not reasonably likely that the conditions wh ich resulted in su ch neglect or abuse can be substant ially corrected or eliminated” so that the children coul d be returned safely to father wi thin a reasonable period of time and that the termination was in the children’s best in terests. Upon reviewing the record and briefs

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - of the parties, we conclude that the trial court did not er r. Accordingly, we af firm the decision of the trial court. BACKGROUND We view the evidence in the light most favor able to the prevailing party below and grant to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Logan v. Fairfax Cty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991). Father and Amanda Dawn Chit wood Pagans (mothe r) are the biological parents to N.C.P., born in January 2010, and S.R.P., bo rn in March 2011. In 2013, moth er gave birth to another child, who was born addicted to methadone. As a result, the De partment became involved with the family. On June 4, 2014, the Fr anklin County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (the JDR court) issued a preliminary child protective orde r. On June 27 , 2014, the JDR c ourt entered an order dismissing the preliminary child protective or der and directing the Department to file removal petitions for N.C.P. and S.R.P. because th e parents tested positive for me thamphetamine. On July 3, 2014, the JDR court entered the preliminary remova l orders, and on July 22, 2014, the JDR court entered the adjudicatory orders findin g that the children were neglected. The Department set up several requirements and services for the pa rents. Father was required to provide information for a criminal background check, complete a psychological examination and follow through with any recommendations, comple te a substance abuse evaluation and comply with any recommendations, complete a parenting class, participate in individual counseling, visit with the childr en, maintain cont act with the Depa rtment, and cooperate with the Department. Father frequently missed visitati on appointments or was la te, and other than the occasional visits, father did not complete any of the Department’s requireme nts. On November 4,- 3 - 2015, the JDR court terminated father’s parental rights to N.C.P. and S.R.P. 1 Father appealed to the circuit court. On May 25, 2016, the circu it court heard the parties’ ev idence and argument. The Department presented eviden ce that the children were doing well in foster care and that the foster parents wished to adopt the children. Father test ified that he depended on mother to set up the appointments for him because he was working. Father admitted that he did not contact the Department and did not complete their requirements. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court noted that father took no re sponsibility for his actio ns and blamed his wi fe for everything. The circuit court told father, “For two years you knew that they [the children] were in foster care. You knew what was going to happen. Everything was explained to you and you didn’t . . . make any effort.” The circui t court found that the Department proved by cl ear and convincing evidence that termination of father’s parental rights was warranted pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B) and (C)(2). The circuit court entered the final orde r on July 20, 2016. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS Father argues that the trial co urt erred in finding that the evid ence was sufficient to terminate his parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B). He explains that he did not complete the Department’s requirements because of “a lack of communication” and his “l ong work hours.” He emphasizes that he wants to be a part of his child ren’s lives and showed interest in his children by visiting them. “[C]lear and convincing evidence that the termin ation [of parental right s] is in the child’s best interests is a requirement in common to termination of parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(B) [or] (C) . . . .” Fields v. Dinwi ddie Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 8

1 The JDR court also terminated mother’s parent al rights. Mother appealed to the circuit court, but she did not attend the circuit court he aring. The circuit court terminated mother’s parental rights.- 4 - 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, Logan, 13 Va. App. at 128, 409 S.E.2d at 463, terminations under Code § 16.1- 283(B) and the subsections of Code § 16.1-283(C) provide distinct, “i ndividual bases upon which a petiti oner may seek to terminate residual parental rights,” City of Newport News Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Winslow, 40 Va. App. 556, 563, 580 S.E.2d 463, 466 (2003). Father contends the evidence was in sufficient to support the termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B), but does not challenge the termin ation pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). Because father fails even to challenge the te rmination of his parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), this failure re nders moot his claim challenging the termination under Code § 16.1-283(B), and, therefore, we do not need to reach that claim as his parental rights would be terminated in any event under Code § 16.1-283(C )(2). See Winslow, 40 Va. App. at 563, 580 S.E.2d at 466. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the tr ial court’s ruling is affirmed. Affirmed.