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

LISA M. ROESSELL MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0742- 17-2 PER CURIAM SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 DAVID L. BOWLES AND SHERRI J. BOWLES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY James F. D’Alton, Jr., Judge (Jessica V. Bailey, on brief), for appellant. Appellant subm itting on brief. (Joan M. O’Donnell; Lind a M.H. Tomli n, Guardian ad litem for the minor child; Old Towne Lawyers, LLP; Tomlin & McKeen, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on brief.
Lisa Roessell (mother) appeals an order of adoption. Mother a rgues that the trial court erred by finding that her consent to t he adoption was withheld contra ry to the best interests of the child because the trial court “arbitrar ily disregarded evidence that her efforts to assert her parental rights were thwarted by other people an d that [she] an d the child prev iously had a quality parent-child relationship.” Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the par ties, we conclude that the trial court did not err. Accordingly, w e affirm the decision of the trial court. BACKGROUND 1 Mother and Troy Lee Brinkley (fa ther) are the biological paren ts to a child born in August 2008. In April 2015, mother a nd the child were living w ith mother’s

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this op inion is not designated fo r publication.

1 Pursuant to Rule 5A:8, the reco rd contains a written statement of facts, but no transcript.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - then-nineteen-year-old son, Michael, and her adopted mother, wh o also was her biological grandmother. Mother testifie d that in April 2015, she was “‘fo rced’ to leave the home and had nowhere to go,” so she left the child with Michael. In May 201 5, David and Sherri Bowles (the Bowleses) were asked to help Mic hael with the child. Mrs. Bowl es helped Michael enroll the child in daycare for the summer and take the child to a pediatr ician for medication. The child started to stay with the Bowle ses periodically. By November 7, 2015, the child was living with the Bowleses permanently because Michael was no longer able to care for the child. On January 7, 2016, the Prince Ge orge County Juvenile and Dome stic Relations District Court (the JDR court) awarde d legal and physical custody of the child to the Bowleses. The JDR court’s order indicated that mo ther was represented by counsel and father was present in person at the hearing. Both mother and f ather agreed to the custody a rrangement. On March 29, 2016, mother pled guil ty to two felonies. As a re sult, she was incarcerated from December 2015 until October 2016. On July 5, 2016, the Bowleses file d a petition for adoption. O n December 6, 2016, the trial court entered an order finding that father had not visite d or contacted the child for a period of six months immediately prior to the Bowleses filing their pe tition for adoption. T he trial court held that father’s consent w as not necessary pursuant to Code § 63.2-1202(H). However, there was evidence that mother attempted to speak with the child when she called Mr. Bowles on June 29, 2016. Mr. Bowles was at work atthe time, and the child wa s not present. The trial court scheduled a hearing for Janua ry 9, 2017 to decide whether mothe r’s consent to the adoption was being withheld contrary to the child’s best interests. On January 9, 2017, the parties appe ared before the trial court for a hearing on the merits. There was conflicting evidence about whether mother had contact with the child after she left in April 2015. Mother testified that she was “in constant contact ” with the child; however, her- 3 - biological mother testified tha t mother did not return for the child after she l eft. In August 2015, mother went to the child’s day care, but had no identification a nd was unable to see the child. Mrs. Bowles testified that mo ther had not attempted to contact the child except for the one phone call to Mr. Bowles on June 29, 2016. M other testified that she had tried to call the Bowleses from jail, but her calls were unanswered. The trial court also heard evid ence about the c hild’s condition and behavior prior to living with the Bowleses and sin ce living with the Bowleses. P rior to the child living with the Bowleses, he had numerous absences from school and was doing po orly in school. The child was underweight and had vision and dental issues. Since living with the Bowleses, the child regularly sees a pediatrician, de ntist, psychiat rist, and licen sed clinical social worker. He is healthy, and the Bowleses obtaine d eyeglasses for him. The chi ld receives medication for ADHD. The child regularly a ttends school and is doing better a cademically. Mrs. Bowles goes to the child’s school weekly t o meet with his teachers and chec k on the child’s progress and behavior, which has improved sin ce he started living with the B owleses. He is now less anxious and more verbal. The child’s counselor testified that the child has bonded with the Bowleses and has told the counselor that he does not w ish to see his mother. The cou nselor opined that contact with mother “would do irreparable harm and cause significant regress ion for the child.” Mother testified that she had a c lose relationship with her chi ld prior to her incarceration. She stated that she met with the child’s teacher and took him t o a doctor. She was not aware that he had any problems with his vision. At the time of the hearin g, she was not employed. She was living in a four-bedroom home w ith Michael and two other friend s. She signed up for parenting classes, which were exp ected to begin on April 18, 2017. Mothe r explained that she did “not want to remove the child from th e Bowles’ care currently, but d esire[d] a relationship with him- 4 - going forward.” She admitted that she had not paid any supportto the Bowleses s ince the child has been living with them. Father also testified in support of mother. He said that mothe r was a “good” mother to the child and that the chil d had been doing well in her care. After hearing all of the evidence, the trial court made the fol lowing findings: that the birth mother made no e ffort to obtain or maintain lega l and physical custody of the child s ince June 2015, other than filin g certain Petitions seeking cust ody and visitation (which are now pending in the Juvenile & Domestic Relations District Court of Prince George) after this proceeding commenced; that the birth mother is currently willing but notable to assume full custody of the child due to her lack of i ndependent housing and stable employment; that the birth mothe r’s efforts to assert parental rights were not thwarted by other people; that the birth mother has fa iled to demonstrate an ability to care for the child; that the birth mother abandoned the child before the ch ild came to reside with the Petitioners; that the birth mot her did not maintain custody of her other children throughout their mi nority; that the child has be en continuously in the Petitione rs’ care since November 2015 and h as improved in health, behavior and a cademics; and that a change i n physical custody of the child ma y have an irreparable harmful effect on his overall development and well-being. The trial court then held that father’s consent to the adoption was not required and that mother’s consent was withheld contrary to the best interests of the child. The trial court granted the Bowleses’ petition for adopt ion, and this appeal followed. ANALYSIS “Where, as here, the c ourt hears the evidence ore tenus , its finding is entitl ed to great weight and will not be disturbe d on appeal unless pl ainly wrong or wit hout evidence to support it.” Martin v. Pittsylvania Cty. Dep’t of S oc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20, 3 48 S.E.2d 13, 16 ( 1986) (citations omitted). Mother argues that the trial court erred by finding that her co nsent to the adoption was withheld contrary to the best i nterests of the child. Mother a rgues that the trial court disregarded- 5 - evidence that the Bowleses thwa rted her efforts to assert her p arental rights and that she and the child had a “high quality par ent-child relationship.” “We have consistently held tha t to grant a petition for adopti on over a birth parent’s objection, there must be more than a mere finding that the adop tion would promote the child’s best interests.” Copeland v. Todd, 28 2 Va. 183, 197, 715 S.E.2d 11, 19 (2011) (citing Malpass v. Morgan, 213 Va. 393, 398-99, 192 S.E.2d 794, 798-99 (1972)). “ Virginia’s statu tory scheme for adoption, including Code §§ 63.2 -1205 and -1208, defines the be st interests of the child in terms that require more expansive anal ysis than when the contest is b etween two biological parents.” Id. at 199, 715 S.E.2d at 20. Code § 63.2-1205 states: In determining whether the va lid consent of any person whose consent is required is withhel d contrary to the best interests of the child, . . . the circuit court . . . s hall consider whether gra nting the petition pending before it would be in the best interest of the child. The circuit court . . . shall consid er all relevant factors, in cluding the birth parent(s)’ efforts t o obtain or maintain legal and ph ysical custody of the child; whether the birth parent(s) are currently willing and able to assume full custody of the child; whether t he birth parent(s)’ efforts to asse rt parental rights were thwarte d by other people; the birth parent( s)’ ability to care for the chil d; the age of the child; the quality of any previous relationship betw een the birth parent(s) and the child and between the birth parent( s) and any other minor children; the duration and suitability of the c hild’s present custodial environmen t; and the effect of a change of physical custody on the child. The Bowleses presented evidence regarding the factors in Code § 63.2-1205. Mother admitted that, at the time of the hearing, she was unable to as sume custody of the child, and she did not want to remove the chil d from the Bowleses’ care. Mother argues that the Bowleses thwarted her efforts to see the child, yet the evidence proved that she was th e one who left the chi ld with her teenage son and did not return for the child. She made one attempt to see her child at daycare over the summe r in August 2015 , but was unable- 6 - to do so because she did not have any identification. The JDR custody order from January 2016 indicated that mother agreed for the Bowleses to have custody o f the child. Moth er did not appeal that order. Mother testified that she tried calling the Bowles es from jail, but th ere was no further information about how often she tried to cal l and whether she l eft messages. Although mother testified that she “continued to call and text message the Bowl es but her attempts were unanswered,” Mrs. Bowles testified that, aside from the one tel ephone call to Mr. Bowles, they had not received any communication fr om mother. The trial court ha d the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses. The trial cour t accepted Mrs. Bowles’ testimony , since it found that mother’s efforts to assert her parental rights were not thwarted by other people . “It is well established that the trier of fact ascertains a witness’ credibility, determines the weigh t to be given to their testimony, and has the discretion to accept or r eject any of the witness’ test imony.” Street v. Str eet, 25 Va. App. 380, 387, 488 S.E.2d 665, 668 (1997) ( en banc ) (citation omitted). Mother also argues that she h ad a “high quality” relationship with the child prior to him living with the Bowleses. Father corroborated mother’s testimo ny that she was a “good” mother. However, the child’s counselor, the child’s physical education teacher, and the child’s biological grandmother all testified that the child has improved since bei ng in the care of the Bowleses. The child’s counselor testified that the child “has made significant progress.” The child told the counselor that mother was “mean” and he did not want to see her . The child’s physical education teacher talked about t he improvement in th e child’s appearance and behavior since living with the Bowleses. The child’s biological grandmother testified that wh ile under mother’s care, “the child had obvious vision and dental iss ues that [mother] did not reso lve and he was perceived as unhappy;” however after living wi th the Bowleses, the child is “happier, healthier, and cleaner.” The evidence further showed that the child has b onded well with the Bowleses and that a change in custody could cause “irreparable harm” to the child.- 7 - Based on all of the evidence, the trial court did not err in fi nding that mother was withholding her consent to the adoption contrary to the child’s best interests. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the t rial court’s ruling is affirme d. Affirmed.