COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Bumgardner and Lemons 

RONLYN LORAY BROWNE HICKS EATON 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 0868-99-3 PER CURIAM 

 JULY 20, 1999 

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

 FOR THE COUNTY OF BEDFORD 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BEDFORD COUNTY 

James W. Updike, Jr., Judge 

 (James J. Angel, on brief), for appellant. 

 (J. G. Overstreet, Bedford County Attorney, 

on brief), for appellee. 

 Ronlyn Loray Browne Hicks Eaton (mother) appeals the decision 

of the circuit court terminating her residual parental rights to 

her twin daughters, Lilly C. Browne and Cheyene A. Browne. Mother 

contends on appeal that the trial court erred in finding that the 

Department of Social Services (DSS) presented sufficient evidence 

to terminate mother's parental rights. Upon reviewing the record 

and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without 

merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial 

court. See Rule 5A:27. 

 "When addressing matters concerning a child, including the 

termination of a parent's residual parental rights, the 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
- 2 - 

paramount consideration of a trial court is the child’s best 

interests." Logan v. Fairfax County Dep’t of Human Development, 

13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991). 

"In matters of a child's welfare, trial 

courts are vested with broad discretion in 

making the decisions necessary to guard and 

to foster a child's best interests." The 

trial court's judgment, "when based on 

evidence heard ore tenus, will not be 

disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or 

without evidence to support it." 

Id. (citations omitted). "Code § 16.1-283 embodies 'the 

statutory scheme for the . . . termination of residual parental 

rights in this Commonwealth' [which] . . . 'provides detailed 

procedures designed to protect the rights of the parents and 

their child,' balancing their interests while seeking to 

preserve the family." Lecky v. Reed, 20 Va. App. 306, 311, 456 

S.E.2d 538, 540 (1995) (citations omitted). 

 The trial court found that DSS presented sufficient 

evidence under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) to terminate mother's 

parental rights. Under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), the parental 

rights of a child placed in foster care may be terminated if the 

court finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the 

best interests of the child and that 

[t]he parent . . . , without good cause, 

[has] been unwilling or unable within a 

reasonable period not to exceed twelve 

months from the date the child was placed in 

foster care to remedy substantially the 

conditions which led to or required 

continuation of the child's foster care 
- 3 - 

placement, notwithstanding the reasonable 

and appropriate efforts of social, medical, 

mental health or other rehabilitative 

agencies to such end. Proof that the parent 

or parents, without good cause, have failed 

or been unable to make substantial progress 

towards elimination of the conditions which 

led to or required continuation of the 

child's foster care placement in accordance 

with their obligations under and within the 

time limits or goals set forth in a foster 

care plan filed with the court or any other 

plan jointly designed and agreed to by the 

parent or parents and a public or private 

social, medical, mental health or other 

rehabilitative agency shall constitute prima 

facie evidence of this condition. The court 

shall take into consideration the prior 

efforts of such agencies to rehabilitate the 

parent or parents prior to the placement of 

the child in foster care. 

 The twins were placed in foster care on February 6, 1997, 

by mother's parents, who had custody of the twins while mother 

was incarcerated. Upon mother's release on June 12, 1997, a 

visitation schedule was established. 

 Despite many offers of assistance by DSS, including 

substance abuse counseling and in-home services, mother failed 

to remedy the underlying problems that led to the children's 

foster care placement. Mother was required to complete a 

substance abuse evaluation, due to evidence that she was a drug 

abuser, but failed to undergo either the evaluation or 

counseling. Two different in-home service providers terminated 

service to mother due to her lack of cooperation. Moreover, 

during the period of October 1997 through May 1998, mother 
- 4 - 

indicated to DSS that she was prepared to sign a permanent 

entrustment of the twins to DSS to allow adoption. 

 The evidence also showed that at the time the twins were 

placed in foster care, they were developmentally delayed, behind 

in speech and language, and were failing to thrive. One of the 

twins had a high level of lead in her system. In visitations 

with mother, the observers repeatedly noted that there was a 

lack of emotional attachment between the children and mother. 

Although DSS recommended frequent visitation so that the twins 

could re-establish a bond with mother, mother's visitation with 

the twins was sporadic. The evidence at trial indicated that 

the twins were doing well in foster care and were no longer 

developmentally delayed. 

 At trial, mother testified that she was employed and had 

been drug-free for an extended period of time. Mother also 

testified that she supported the custody petition filed by her 

parents. The denial of that petition was not appealed. 

 Evidence in the record fully supports the findings of the 

trial court that DSS presented clear and convincing evidence 

sufficient under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) to terminate mother's 

parental rights to the twins. The children were in foster care 

for more than two years, while mother refused to cooperate with 

the agencies seeking to assist her and demonstrated little 

desire to work towards the return of the twins. "It is clearly 
- 5 - 

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 

capable of resuming his responsibilities." Kaywood v. Halifax 

County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 

492, 495 (1990). 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

Affirmed.