COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Coleman, Bray and Bumgardner 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

PHYLLIS FULLER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2610-97-1 JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III 

 JULY 7, 1998 

CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 

 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 

Alan E. Rosenblatt, Judge 

 Curtis T. Brown for appellant. 

 (Leslie L. Lilley, City Attorney; Nianza E. 

Wallace II, Assistant City Attorney, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Phyllis Fuller (mother) appeals the trial court's order 

terminating her residual parental rights with respect to five of 

her minor children. Mother contends: (1) the City of Virginia 

Beach Department of Social Services (agency) did not adequately 

investigate the possibility of granting custody of the children 

to relatives, and (2) the trial court erred in finding that three 

of the children had not reached an "age of discretion" to object 

to the termination of mother's parental rights.1

 Finding no 

error, we affirm the trial court's ruling. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 

 1Mother also contends the agency failed to make reasonable 

efforts to provide her with medical and financial assistance. 

She did not make this claim in the trial court in arguing her 

motions to strike the evidence. See Rule 5A:18; Taylor v. 

Commonwealth, 21 Va. App. 557, 565-66, 466 S.E.2d 118, 122 

(1996). Because the record does not reflect any reason to invoke 

the good cause or ends of justice exceptions, Rule 5A:18 

precludes our review of this argument on appeal. 
- 2 - 

 When reviewing the trial court's termination of parental 

rights on appeal, we view the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the prevailing party below, the agency in this case. 

See Logan v. Fairfax County Dep't of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 

123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991). Where the evidence is 

heard ore tenus, we will not disturb the trial court's judgment 

unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. 

See Lowe v. Dep't of Public Welfare, 231 Va. 277, 282, 343 S.E.2d 

70, 73 (1986). 

PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN WITH RELATIVES

 Code § 16.1-283(A) provides, in pertinent part, that before 

terminating parental rights the court "shall give consideration 

to granting custody to relatives of the child, including 

grandparents." "Before termination of parental rights by the 

court, the agency seeking termination has an affirmative duty to 

investigate all reasonable options for placement with immediate 

relatives." Sauer v. Franklin County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 18 

Va. App. 769, 771, 446 S.E.2d 640, 641 (1994). However, the 

agency is not required to investigate the home of every relative 

as a potential placement for the children. See id. at 771, 446 

S.E.2d at 642. 

 Here, the evidence established that the agency investigated, 

and ultimately rejected, the homes of the children's father and 

aunt for potential placement. Both the mother and the aunt told 

the social worker assigned to mother's case that no other 
- 3 - 

relatives were interested in taking custody of the children. 

Under these circumstances, the agency fulfilled its duty to 

investigate immediate relatives as possible sources for placement 

of the children in accordance with Code § 16.1-283(A). 

AGE OF DISCRETION

 Code § 16.1-283(E) states that "residual parental rights 

shall not be terminated if it is established that the child, if 

he is at least fourteen years of age or older[,] or otherwise of 

an age of discretion as determined by the court, objects to such 

termination." (Emphasis added). A child has reached the age of 

discretion if the evidence proves that he or she is "sufficiently 

mature to have intelligent views and wishes on the subject of the 

termination proceeding." Hawks v. Dinwiddie Dep't of Soc. 

Servs., 25 Va. App. 247, 253, 487 S.E.2d 285, 288 (1997). The 

determination of whether the child has reached the "age of 

discretion" is committed to the sound discretion of the trial 

court. Id.; Deahl v. Winchester Dep't of Soc. Servs., 224 Va. 

664, 676, 299 S.E.2d 863, 869 (1983). 

 Mother claims the trial court erred in finding that three of 

her children had not reached an "age of discretion" to object to 

termination of her parental rights. We disagree. The trial 

court heard testimony from each of the three children and found 

"no evidence . . . which proves that any of [the children] are 

mature enough to have intelligent views of the subject of 

termination." Two of the children expressly indicated that they 
- 4 - 

did not understand the nature of the proceeding. When the third 

child was asked if she understood the purpose of the hearing, she 

merely responded "my mom . . . ain't do what she was supposed to 

do." On this record, we cannot say that the trial court abused 

the broad discretion accorded by the legislature to determine 

that the children had not attained the "age of discretion." 

 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's 

termination of mother's residual parental rights. 

 Affirmed.