COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Kelsey, Beal es and Senior Judge Clements

CARMEN ALCAZAR v. Record No. 1189-13-3
HARRISONBURG ROCKINGHAM SOCIAL SERVICES DISTRICT MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM CARMEN ALCAZAR JANUARY 7, 2014 v. Record No. 1190-13-3
HARRISONBURG ROCKINGHAM SOCIAL SERVICES DISTRICT

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY James V. Lane, Judge (W. Andrew Harding, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. (Rachel Errett Figura, Assistan t County Attorney ; Sherwin John Jacobs, Guardian ad litem for the minor children, on brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on brief.
Carmen Alcazar (mother) appeals orders termin ating her parental righ ts to her children. Mother argues that the tria l court erred by terminating her parental rights because she substantially remedied the conditions which led to the removal of the children pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) and the Harrisonburg Rockingham Social Services District (the Departme nt) did not prove the requirements for termination purs uant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(1). 1 Upon reviewin g the record and

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

1 We find that mother preserved the issues fo r appeal in her closing argument to the trial court. See Rule 5A:18.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - briefs of the parties, we conclu de that the trial court did not er r. Accordingly, we affirm the decisions of th e trial court.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 Cnty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 462 (1991). Mother has two children who ar e the subject of this appeal. 2 Since 2003, the Department has been involved with mother and the childre n. There were issues of inadequate hygiene, shelter, and domestic violence. In March 2011, mother and her two children were living with Angel Pacheco, mother’s boyfriend. The Department had received a compla int that mother and Pacheco were selling prescription pills and drugs out of the home. Th e drug task force and sheriff’s office searched the home and found packaged pills, drugs, drug pa raphernalia, and cash. The children told the Department that Pacheco’s “fri ends come over and give him money for the green stuff. [Pacheco] smokes the green stuff and white powder.” They also said that Pacheco “goes to New York to get the white powder and smokes it wi th a lighter.” The Department removed the children on March 29, 2011. Both mother and Pacheco were present at the emergency removal hearing and the preliminary hearing. Pacheco informed the court th at he did not want to be part of the case and that he would not coopera te with the Department. When children are removed from their home, th e Department’s policy is to involve adults who are living in the ho me with the children. The Depart ment conducts criminal background

2 The children’s father, Hector Santiago, ha d limited involvement in this case. His parental rights were terminated, a nd he did not appeal that decision.- 3 - and child protective services (CPS) checks on th ose adults. If the adult passes the background checks, then the Department offers servic es, including drug testi ng and substance abuse counseling. The adult also would be involved in any of the Department’s meetings and supervised visitation. The Department would not return a child home to his mother without the required background checks and invo lvement of a live-in boyfriend. In addition to Pacheco’s lack of cooper ation, the Department was concerned about placing the children in the same home with Pach eco because he had a felony conviction for drug distribution. The Department informed mother that if Pacheco would not cooperate with the Department, then the children co uld not be placed in the same house with him, and mother would have to stop seeing him. The Department expl ained that mother needed to obtain suitable housing for her and the children. At the time, Pa checo was her payee for her SSI payments, and the Department advised her to change her payee. The Department also was concerned about her parenting skills and communication skills. During visitations, mother primarily spoke Spanish, and the children primarily spoke English. The Department offered mother supervised visitation, parenting education and classes, individual counseling, and Englis h classes. The Department al so offered the services of a bilingual worker for mother. Mother falsely told the Department that sh e ended her relationship with Pacheco. She never asked the Department to involve Pacheco in the foster care case. The Department found that mother was not compliant w ith its requirements because not only did she not take English classes, but she refused to sepa rate from Pacheco. The Department did not find suitable any housing in which mother and Pacheco resided together. The children were “fearful” of Pacheco and to ld the social worker that he was “mean.” In November 2011, mother visited with the children, and after th e visit, Pacheco drove by and- 4 - waved at the children. One of the children “had an emotional breakdown for hours. He tore up the car that he was in, just was all over the place. He was very hard to be consoled.” On April 4, 2012, the Harrisonburg-Rockingha m Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (the JDR court) entered a child protective order for the children. The order stated that mother would ensure that the children had no contact with Pacheco. Mother assured the Department that she was no longer involved with Pacheco. The Department subsequently worked with mother in finding housing and furniture. It also facilitated unsupervised visits between th e children and mother. In late July 2012, the children had an unsupervised visit with mother for the weekend. Wh en the social worker picked up the children, they informed her that Pacheco ha d been at the home and that all four of them went to Maryland for the weekend. Mother did not have permission to take the children out of state. Mother told the children not to tell the so cial worker about their visit with Pacheco. When the Department confronted mother about the in cident, mother denied that Pacheco had been around the children. She said that the children were lyi ng and that they went to Maryland with a different man, not Pacheco. After this incident, mother had no further cont act with the children. She never asked the Department for visitations, ne ver sent the children a letter or card, and never contacted the Department to check on the children. Her attorney tried to coordinate a visit in October 2012, but the guardian ad litem recommended that mother not visit with the children at that point. On August 28, 2012, the Department filed a petiti on to terminate mother’s parental rights to the children. The JDR court terminated mother’s parental rights on December 19, 2012, and mother appealed to the circuit court. Af ter hearing testimony and argument on June 10, 2013, the circuit court terminated mother’s parent al rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) and (C)(2). These appeals followed.- 5 - ANALYSIS “Where, as here, the court hears the evidence ore tenus , its finding is en titled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unle ss plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Martin v. Pittsylvania Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20, 348 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1986) (citations omitted). When considering te rmination of parental rights, “the paramount consideration of a trial court is the child’s best interest s.” Logan, 13 Va. App. at 128, 409 S.E.2d
at 463. Termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) Mother argues that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) because the Department did not pr ove that mother failed to substa ntially remedy the conditions which le d to the removal. A court may terminate parental rights if: The parent or parents, without good cause, have been unwilling or unable within a reasonable period of time not to exceed twelve months from the date the child wa s placed in foster care to remedy substantially the conditio ns which led to or required continuation of the child’s foster care placement, notwithstanding the reasonable and appropriate efforts of social, medical, mental health or other rehabilitative agencies to such end. Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). The Department had been involved with mo ther since 2003. It ultimately removed the children because mother was living with a man “in a house where drugs [were] sold and consumed frequently.” Mother was charged with possession of various narcotics, and Pacheco was charged with possession of marijuana. Bo th received a deferred disposition as a first offender. After the children were removed from the home, Pacheco informed the Department that he would not cooperate with them. The De partment could not conduct criminal background- 6 - checks or CPS checks on Pacheco. Since Pacheco c ould not be investigated, the Department told mother that she could not live with him if she wanted the children returned to her custody. Mother told the Department th at she had ended her relationshi p with Pacheco, but there was evidence to the contrary. In April 2012, the Department sought a prot ective order, which pr ohibited mother from allowing any contact between the children and Pacheco. During the summer of 2012, mother violated the protective order, and the children spent the w eekend with her and Pacheco. In addition, the Department required mother to participate in English classes. She primarily spoke Spanish, and th e children primarily spoke Eng lish. She never took the required classes. At the time of the trial, the children had been in foster care for approximately twenty-six months. There was evidence that the children were doing well. However, while the children were in foster care, mother di d not substantially remedy the situation that led to the children being placed in and continuing in foster care. The trial court noted that “mother just simply doesn’t seem to have the wherew ithal to correct these problems and put the children in a stable situation which they need.” “It is clearly not in the best interests of a child to spend a lengthy period of time waiting to find out when, or even if, a parent will be capa ble of resuming his [or her] responsibilities.” Kaywood v. Halifax Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1990). The trial court did not err in terminating mother’s parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2).- 7 - Termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) Mother argues that the trial court erred in te rminating her parental ri ghts pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) because the Department failed to m eet its burden. She contends she tried to visit with the children, but visita tion was denied. She also assert s that she and Pacheco showed dramatic improvement in their lives, since the children were placed in foster care. Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) states a parent’s pa rental rights may be terminated if: [t]he parent or parents have, w ithout good cause, failed to maintain continuing contact with and to prov ide or substantially plan for the future of the child for a period of six months after the child’s placement in foster care notw ithstanding the reasonable and appropriate efforts of social, me dical, mental health or other rehabilitative agencies to communi cate with the parent or parents and to strengthen the parent-chi ld relationship. Proof that the parent or parents have failed without good cause to communicate on a continuing and planned basis with the child for a period of six months shall constitute prima facie evidence of this condition. The Department ceased mother’s visitations with the children in August 2012, after it discovered she violated the protective order by allowing the children to spend the weekend not only with her but also with Pacheco. She also took the children out of state without the Department’s permission. After mother’s visitati ons stopped, she did not contact the Department to inquire about the children. She did not ask if she could send the children cards or letters. In October 2012, her attorney tried to arrange a visitation, but the guardian ad litem did not think it was in the children’s best interests. Mother’s future plans for the children i nvolved Pacheco. There was evidence presented that they intended to marry and raise the chil dren together. However, the protective order prohibited mother from allowing the children to have contact w ith Pacheco. Mother’s plans were not viable. The trial court did not err in terminating mother’s parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(1).- 8 - CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the tr ial court’s ruling is affirmed. Affirmed.