COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Alston, Cha fin and Senior Judge Haley

MARC LOUIS MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0127- 17-2 PER CURIAM OCTOBER 10, 2017 SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY Joseph J. Ellis, Judge (Erin K. Dooley, on b rief), for appellant. (Robert F. Beard; Elizabeth Carpenter-Hughes, Guardian ad litem for the minor child; Vanderpool, Frostick & Nishanian, P.C.; Willia ms Stone Carpenter Buczek, PC, on brief), for appellee.
Marc Louis (father) appeals the orders terminating his parenta l rights to his child and approving the goal of adoption for the child. Father argues th at the trial court erred by (1) denying his “request to continue based upon pending criminal matters be tween the parties, ” (2) “proceeding with the trial when the Guardian ad litem for the child was app ointed after the trial;” and (3) “granting/upholding the Department of Social Services’ Peti tion for Termination of Appellant’s Parental Rights.” Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordi ngly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this op inion is not designated fo r publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - BACKGROUND We view the evidence in the li ght most favorable to the prevail ing party below and grant to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Se e Logan v. Fairfax Cty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991). Father and Merley Dorestal (mot her) are the biological parents to D.L., who was born in May 2013. On July 21, 2015, the Prince William County Circuit Court terminated father’s parental rights to D.L. pur suant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). 1
Father and mother also are the biological parents to P.L., who was born in June 2014 and is the subject of this appeal . In the early morning hours of A ugust 5, 2015, the police responded to father and mother’s home for a domestic violence incident. Both father and mother were intoxicated, and the home smelle d of marijuana. The police pla ced father and mother under arrest. The police contacted the Department of Social Services (the Department), and a social worker arrived at the house at 1:30 a.m. The social worker spo ke with mother and father. Father told the social worker that mo ther, her adult daughter, and her daughter’s boyfriend were smoking marijuana in the presence of the child, which prompted the altercation. The social worker noticed that there were beer bottles s cattered throughou t the home. There was no carpeting on the second floor, but t here were tack strips along the side of the wall. Mother and father told the social worker t hat mother’s adult daughter was a possible placement for P.L., but she had been charged with posse ssion of marijuana and was not a suitable placement. Consequently, the Department removed P.L. and placed her in fos ter care. In an effort to arrange visitati on with the child, the Departme nt told mother that she needed to have a clean drug scree n before she could visit with the child. Mother told the social

1 On March 23, 2015, the Prince Willi am County Circuit Court ter minated mother’s parental rights to D.L. pursu ant to Code § 16.1-283(E)(i).- 3 - worker that she smoked marijuan a an average of two times per we ek and that it would take at least a month for the drugs to lea ve her system. The Departmen t scheduled a drug screen and visitation, but mother cancelled b ecause she said that she coul d not find her keys. Visitations stopped once the Spotsylvania Coun ty Juvenile and Domestic Rela tions District Court (the JDR court) found that reasonable efforts were not required. The Department searched for rel atives as potential placements f or the child. They mailed out 198 letters to possible relativ es. Initially, the Departme nt did not receive any responses, but subsequently, they heard from a maternal aunt who lived in Flor ida. The maternal aunt filed a petition for custody, and the Depar tment started the process of background checks and a home study through the Interstate Comp act on the Placement of Childr en (ICPC). The maternal aunt’s home was not approved for placement. The Department also exami ned the possibility of placement with the child’s adult brother and his girlfriend, bu t determined that the placement would not be suitable due to “uns table housing and finances.” On October 2, 2015, the JDR court en tered an adjudicatory order finding that the child was abused or neglected, or at risk of abuse and neglect due to prior adjudication of abuse and neglect for another child. On October 15, 2015, the Department filed a petition to termina te mother and father’s parental rights to P.L. On November 6, 2015, the JDR court ent ered an order terminating mother and father’s parental right s to P.L. pursuant to Code § 16.1-28 3(E)(i). The JDR court also approved the goal of adoption for P.L. Father and mother appealed the adjudicatory, termination, and p ermanency planning orders. On April 5, 2016, the partie s appeared before the tria l court. At the beginning of the hearing, father made a motion to continue the case until the co urt could hear a criminal matter concerning mother and father. The trial court denied the motio n, and the parties presented their- 4 - evidence and arguments. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court terminated father and mother’s parental rights pur suant to Code § 16.1-283(E)(i) and approved the goal of adoption. This appeal followed. 2
ANALYSIS Assignments of error #1 and 2 In his first assignment of error , father argues that the trial court erred by not granting his motion for a continuance. For t he first time on appeal, father argues that the trial court violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He conte nds the denial of his motion “was analogous to a dismissal of his case by limiting his ability to defend his interests and acted as an enhanced punishment to his incarceration.” In his second assignment of error , he argues that the trial co urt erred by proceeding with the trial even though the guardian ad litem was not appointed until after the trial. At the beginning of the trial, the Depar tment notified the court that there was not an order reappointing the guardian ad litem in the circuit court . The trial court entered an order on that day reappointing the guardian ad litem , and she participated in the proceeding. Father did not note any objections to the order. Father admits that he did not pr eserve the first and second ass ignments of error. Rule 5A:18 states, “No ruling of t he trial court . . . will be consi dered as a basis for reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonabl e certainty at the time of t he ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of A ppeals to attain the ends of j ustice.” Father asks this Court to consid er his arguments pursuant to th e good cause exception. Father had the opportunity to object to the trial court’s rulin gs, but failed to do so. Therefore, the

2 Mother also appealed the trial court’s orders terminating her parental rights and approving the goal of adoption. S ee Dorestal v. Spotsylvania C ty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., Record No. 0128-17-2.- 5 - good cause exception does not apply to any of his arguments in the first and second assignments of error. See M. Morgan Che rry & Assocs. v. Cherry, 38 Va. App . 693, 702, 568 S.E.2d 391, 396 (2002) ( en banc ) (holding that Rule 5A:18 app lied because the party failed, “w ithout good cause,” to object t o the evidence). Father also asks this Court t o consider his arguments in the f irst and second assignments of error pursuant to the ends of justice exception. “The ends of justice exception is narrow and is to be used sparingly . . . .” R edman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. A pp. 215, 221, 487 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1997) (quoting Brown v. Co mmonwealth, 8 Va. App. 126, 132, 380 S.E.2d 8, 10 (1989)). “In order to avail oneself of t he exception, a defendant must a ffirmatively show that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, not that a miscarriage might have occurred.” Id. (emphasis in original) (citing Mounce v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 433, 43 6, 357 S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987)). As our Supreme Court has stated, application of the ends of jus tice exception “requires a determina tion not only that there was err or . . . but also that application of t he exception is necessary t o avoid a grave injustice.” Cha rles v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 14, 20, 6 13 S.E.2d 432, 434 (2005). This occurs only in “rare instances.” Ball v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 754, 758, 273 S.E.2d 790, 793 (1981). Lacey v. Commonwealth, 54 Va. App. 32, 46, 675 S.E.2d 846, 853 (2009). In this case, father did not show that a miscarriage of justic e occurred because the trial court denied his motion for a c ontinuance, nor did he show that a miscarriage of justice occurred because the order reappointing the guardian ad litem was entered on the da y of the trial. Father does not explain how he was “prevented from preserving his Constitutional Right whe n the Court failed to grant his Continuance” be cause the record shows that he participated in the trial, cross-examined witnesses, and t estified. In addition, father o ffers no argument about the entry of the order reappointing the guardian ad litem , other than to say that the trial court made a “significant procedural error. ” He cites an unpublished case a nd states that “[f]ailure to notice- 6 - the Guardian ad litem, a necessary party to the proceeding is g rounds for dismissal.” The case, Powell v. Arlington Cty. Dep’ t of Soc. Servs., No. 0286-07-4, 2 008 Va. App. LEXIS 207 (Va. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2008), was ref erring to Rule 5A:6, which is a rule applying to appeals to this Court and not a circuit co urt, and does not apply to this case. 3 The guardian ad litem in this case attended the hearing and part icipated by cross-examining w itnesses and presenting her argument. Therefore, the ends of justice exception does not ap ply to the first or second assignment of error. Since the good cause and ends of justice exceptions do not app ly, this Court will not consider appellant’s arguments. Assignment of error #3 Father’s third assignment of erro r states, “The trial court er red by granting/upholding the Department of Social Services ’ Petition for Termination of Appe llant’s Parental Rights.” The trial court terminated father’s parental rights pursuant to Cod e § 16.1-283(E)(i), which states that a parent’s parental rights “m ay be terminated by the court if t he court finds, based upon clear and convincing evidence, that it is i n the best interests of the ch ild and that . . . the r esidual parental rights of the parent regardi ng a sibling of the child have prev iously been involuntarily terminated.” Father does not cont est that his parental rights to D.L. were previously terminated. In fact, they were terminated le ss than one month prior to P.L. ’s removal. After hearing the evidence, the trial court found that P.L.’s h ome was “unsuitable,” “disheveled,” and “nearly uninhabi table, especially for a small child.” The trial court also held that “marijuana had been used i n this home more than on this si ngle occasion” of August 5,

3 Rule 5A:6 has since been ame nded, and subsection (f) states th at “No appeal shall be dismissed because the notice of appeal fails to identify a guar dian ad litem or to provide notice to a guardian ad litem.”- 7 - 2015. Considering the circumstances of the case, the trial cou rt did not err in terminating father’s parental rights to P.L. pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(E) (i). In addition, father raises anothe r issue in his argument sectio n. He contends the Fredericksburg Circuit Court’s termination of Marc Louis’ residual parental rights and a pproval of permanency planning orders stating goals of adoption should be dismissed because th e termination of parental rights actions were not first properly brought, due to the lack of . . . evide nce that the terminationof Marc Louis’ residual parental r ights was in the child’s best interests, in the S potsylvania Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. Since this argument was not expr essed as an assig nment of error , this Court will not address the argument on appeal. See Hillcrest Manor Nursing Ho me v. Underwood, 35 Va. App. 31, 39 n.4, 542 S.E.2d 785, 789 n.4 (2001) (finding “an issue [ was] not expressly stated among the [assignments of error] . . . we, therefore, decline to cons ider [it] on appeal”).
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ruling is summaril y affirmed. Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.