COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Hum phreys and Senior Judge Overton

NORMA JEAN SCRUGGS HAGA MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2915-04-2 PER CURIAM MAY 24, 2005 KEITH SCHLOSBERG AND CAROLYN SCHLOSBERG

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY Charles L. McCormick, III, Judge (Katherine L. Hollister; James Pendleton Baber Law Firm, on brief), for appellant. (Betsy H. Phillip s; Jody Holyst Fariss, Guardian ad litem for the infant child, on brief), for appellee.
Norma Jean Scruggs Haga appeals from th e circuit court’s November 15, 2004 order granting the petition of Keith and Carolyn Schlosbe rg to adopt her birth ch ild. Haga contends the evidence was insuffic ient to support the adoptio n order. Upon reviewing the record and briefs, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
BACKGROUND The child, born October 11, 1997, is also th e daughter of Jeff Haga 1 and is the paternal granddaughter of Carolyn Schlos berg. When the child was ap proximately six weeks old, the Department of Social Services removed her from her parents. On February 4, 1998, Carolyn

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.

1 This Court dismissed Jeff Haga’s appeal by order entered April 18, 2005. Haga v. Schlosberg , Record No. 2903-04-2.- 2 - Schlosberg was awarded temporary custody of the child. During the course of the next several years the child remained with the Schlosbergs. Numerous co urt hearings were held regarding visitation of the child with her biological parent s. On August 2, 2004, the Schlosbergs filed an amended petition for adoption pursuant to Code § 63.2-1201 and re quested a waiver of parental consent pursuant to Code § 63.2-1203. Therapist Lynn C. Blackwood, Jr . testified he treated the chil d between June 2002 and June 2004. He described the child as having made “significant gains” during that period and stated the child demonstrated a secure attachme nt to the Schlosbergs. He opin ed that a change in the child’s current custodial setting would cause a “signi ficant regression.” Social worker Roma Morris testified she ha d contact with Norma Ha ga beginning prior to the child’s birth. Morris had been involved in the removal of Norma Haga ’s two older children due to her inability to care for them. Morris cont inued to provid e services to the Hagas after the child was removed to the Schlosbergs’ care. She tr ied to arrange parenting classes, “recommended counseling,” and “made hom e visits . . . trying to see if th e home situation coul d improve.” She explained “[t]he housing conditions were very poor, with trash and debris sca ttered everywhere.” She also noted that the parents failed to make an y progress towards remedying the conditions. In a January 2004 report, Morris recommended the adoptio n of the child by the Sc hlosbergs, noting that neither parent was capable of taking care of thei r daughter. By that time, Norma Haga was living with another man and Jeff Haga woul d not allow the Department’s repr esentatives to vi sit his home. In an investigation report, Morris indicated that Je ff Haga stated “there are loads of garbage filling up the home, dirty clothes everywhere, and dog urine and feces covering the floors.” During the time the child was in the Schlosberg s’ custody, Norma Haga failed to complete psychological evaluations and test ing, failed to remedy the unsanitary conditio n of her residence, failed to attend parenting classe s, and refused in -home services.- 3 - Norma Haga failed to appear at the October 26, 2004 adopt ion hearing and presented no evidence. The evidence proved she had no contact with the ch ild during the eighteen months preceding the adoption hearing. The trial judge granted the adoptio n petition, finding that consent was withheld by the parents contrary to the best interests of the child.
ANALYSIS Under familiar principles of appellate re view, we consider the evidence and all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Schlosbergs, the parties who prevailed below. See Farley v. Farley , 9 Va. App. 326, 328, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990). Thus, all evidence in conf lict with the Schlosbergs’ evidence must be disregarded. See Garst v. Obenchain , 196 Va. 664, 668, 85 S.E.2d 207, 210 (1955). When the trial court’s decision is based, as here, on an ore tenus hearing, it “is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plai nly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Frye v. Spotte , 4 Va. App. 530, 537, 359 S.E.2d 315, 319-20 (1987). Furthe rmore, it is well settled that “the trier of fact ascertains a witn ess’ credibility, determines the weight to be given to their testimony, and has the discretion to accept or reject any of the witness’ testimony.” Anderson v. Anderson , 29 Va. App. 673, 686, 514 S.E.2d 369, 376 (1999). “An adoption over objection by a natural pare nt should not be gran ted except upon clear and convincing evidence that the ad option would be in a child’s best interest and that it would be detrimental to continue the natura l parent-child relationship.” Frye , 4 Va. App. at 532, 359 S.E.2d at 317. In making that determination, the trial court must “consider the child’s best interests vis-a-vis both the prospective a doptive parents and the pare nt whose consent to the adoption is being withhe ld.” Hickman v. Futty , 25 Va. App. 420, 432, 489 S.E.2d 232, 237 (1997). In determining whether the withholding of cons ent is contrary to the child’s best interests, the court must “consider whether the fa ilure to grant the petitio n for adoption would be- 4 - detrimental to the child.” Id. at 426, 489 S.E.2d at 234-35 (citing and listing factors in former Code § 63.1-225.1). 2 Detriment is determined . . . by cons idering the non-consenting parent’s fitness, or ability, to parent the child as well as the relationship the non-consenting parent maintains with th e child and other children, if any. That relationship . . . is evaluated in terms of the non-consenting parent’s willingness to provide for the child, th at parent’s record of asserting parental rights, taking into considerat ion the extent to which, if any, such efforts were thwarted by other people, and the quality of the parent-child relationship. Id. at 431-32, 489 S.E.2d at 237; see also Code § 63.2-1205 (setting forth the “relevant factors” a court must consider). Where the evidence reveals that a doption would be in the child’s best interests and the con tinued relationship with the non-consenting parent would be detrimental, it follows that the failure to grant the adoption would be detrimental to the child. In such a case, the conclusion that cons ent is withheld contrary to the child’s best interests is compelled. Hickman , 25 Va. App. at 432, 489 S.E.2d at 237-38. Here, the evidence supports the trial court’ s findings that Norma Haga withheld consent contrary to the best interests of the child and that her continued relationship with the child would be detrimental. The Schlosbergs have provided supervision and a positive home environment for the child since shortly after her birth. Since the child was removed fro m the home, Norma Haga has provided no financial assistance to the child, ha s had limited contact with the child, and has been unable or unwilling to remedy the factors that led to the child’s initia l removal from her care.

2 Code § 63.1-225.1 was repealed and recodi fied in 2000 as Code § 63.1-219.13. In October 2002, Code § 63.1-219.13 was repealed and recodified as Code § 63.2-1205. Likewise, Code § 63.1-225(F) was also repeal ed and recodified in 2000 as Code § 63.1-219.11, which in October 2002, was repealed and recodified as Code § 63.2-1203.- 5 - Nothing in the record indicates the Schlosbergs thwarted any attempts by Norma Haga to have a relationship with her child. The record contains sufficient evidence from which the trial court could find by clear and convincing proof that continui ng a parent-child affiliation be tween Norma Haga and the child would be detrimental and that Norma Haga withheld consent c ontrary to the best interests of the child. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.