COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Decker, Judges Humphreys and O’Brien

KIARA RANDOLPH MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1144- 18-3 PER CURIAM FEBRUARY 12, 2019 ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SALEM William D. Broadhurst, Judge (Diana M. Perkinson; Perkinson Law Office, on brief), for app ellant. Appellant submitting on brief. (Rachel W. Lower, Assistant Cit y Attorney; Shannon L. Jones, Guardian ad litemfor the minor children, on brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on brief.

Kiara Randolph (mother) appeals the circuit court’s order term inating her parental rights to her five children and approving the foster care goal of adoptio n. Mother argues that the circuit court erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence to terminat e her parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). Upon reviewi ng the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that the circuit court did not e rr. Accordingly, we affirm the decisionof the circuit court.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this op inion is not designated fo r publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - BACKGROUND 1 “On appeal, ‘we view the evidenc e and all reason able inferences in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below, in this case the Department.’” Farrell v. Warren Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 59 Va . App. 375, 386 (2012) (quoting Jenk ins v. Winchester Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 12 Va. App. 1178, 1180 (1991)). Mother is the biological mothe r to five children, J.A.E., J.D. E., J.S.A.C., J.A.C., and J.T. 2 The Roanoke City Department of Social Services first became inv olved with the family in February 2012, and had conducted several family assessments thr ough May 2014. On December 4, 2015, the Roanoke City Department of Social Services receive d a complaint that mother had given her older children adult a llergy medication to calm them down and had shaken J.T. to stop him from crying. When the Child Protective Services (CPS) inve stigator arrived at the house on December 5, 2015, J.S.A.C., who was four years old at the time, opened the door and reported that there were no adults at hom e. In addition to J.S.A.C., th ere were four other children, all under the age of four years old, a t the home alone. Amongst th ose five children were J.A.C., who was three years old, and J.T., who was one year old. The C PS investigator alerted the police and her supervisor. Approxi mately five to eight minutes later, mother and another woman arrived at the house and explaine d that they had gone to the bu s stop to pick up their older children. They thought that the othe r woman’s teenage brother was watching the children.

1 The record in this case was seal ed. Nevertheless, the appeal necessitates unsealing relevant portions of the record t o resolve the issues raised byappellant. Evidence and factual findings below that are necessar y to address the assignments of error are included in this opinion. Consequently, “[t]o the extent that this opinion mentions facts found in the seale d record, we unseal only those specific facts , finding them relevant to the decision in this case. The remainder of the previously sealed recor d remains sealed.” Levick v. Mac Dougall, 294 Va. 283, 288 n.1 (2017).

2 We will refer to the minor children by their initials.- 3 - When the CPS investigator tol d mother about the purpose of her visit and the allegations against her, mother became ve ry loud and started cursing. The CPS investigator entered into safety plans with mother and the other woman and placed the chi ldren with relatives. The police arrested mother and the other w oman for five counts of contribu ting to the delinquency of a minor. The CPS investigator s ought and obtained protective ord ers for the children. At the conclusion of the investigati on, the matter was founded as a “l evel one for inaccurate supervision.” The Roanoke City D epartment of Social Services t ransferred the case to Roanoke County Department of Social Servic es (the Department) after mot her moved to Salem. When the Department first became involved with the family, the children were “very overwhelmed” and “stressed.” J .A.E., who was seven years old, needed a physical and immunizations and assisted “quite a bit” with the care for the younger children. J.D.E., who was six years old, was “extremely aggr essive” and urinated in the c loset and beds. J.S.A.C., who was almost five years old, was diagnosed with sickle cell anemia, a heart murmur, and a kidney condition. J.S.A.C. required peni cillin twice per day, but had been without penicillin for four months when the Department first became involved with the famil y. He also had missed several medical appointments at the Uni versity of Virginia. J.A.C., wh o was four years old, was “very withdrawn” and aggressive. J.T., who was one year old, frequen tly cried and was a “very fussy, unsettled baby.” The Department offered ongoing services from January 12, 2016 through August 15, 2016. Mother completed a parentin g class, but otherwise, was “ extremely resistant” to the services. The Department provide d CHIP services, which helped to coordinate medical care for the children. The Department re ferred mother for mental health treatment and medication management because she had been diagnosed with paranoid schizop hrenia and bipolar disorder.- 4 - Mother, however, was noncomplia nt with her medication. The Dep artment referred mother to a mental health skill builder, with w hom she was somewhat complia nt with her appointments. Mother’s finances were an issue that impacted the children’s ba sic needs, including housing and food. The Department offered mother financial assi stance and budgeting assistance to address the problems. Mother , however, refused to share her financial information. Mother had difficulty with maintaining hous ing, despite her disabilityincome, J.S.A.C.’s disability income, temporary aid to needy fam ilies (TANF) from the Departm ent, and child support. Mother had food stamps, but w as unable to provide enough food f or the family. The Department referred her to WIC, which is an other food service offered thro ugh the Health Department, but mother declined the service becau se it was “too much trouble.” The Department paid for some food and referred her to th e Salem Food Pantry. The Department also offered family support services to help with parenting, housekeeping, skill building, scheduling appointments, time man agement, employment and job readiness, transportation assi stance, finding support, and find ing child care. The Department paid for the children to attend s ummer camp and transported the m to the summer camp. The Department also provided the c hildren with bath ing suits and ga ve mother gift cards to purchase snacks for the children at camp. In addition, the Department p urchased two twin mattresses and bed frames, and it paid the electric bill and one month’s rent. Despite all of this assistance, mother was still three months behind in her rent and other bill s. By August 2016, mother faced eviction, and the condition of th e home had deteriorated. Mother refused to allow the Depa rtment to confirm her medicatio n management, but the Department learned that she had m issed appointments with her co unselor and psychiatrist. Mother refused to allow the De partment to assist her with budge ting and would not explain to the Department where her funds were spent. The Department was conc erned that mother continued- 5 - to leave the children w ith inappropriate caregivers, and the De partment noticed that the children’s hygiene had det eriorated. On August 15, 2016, the D epartment met with the mother to discuss its concerns and aske d her to take a drug test, whic h she refused. However, she admitted that she would test positive for marijuana and possibl y something else. At that point, there were no options f or relative placement, so the Department removed the children and placed them in foster care. On August 16, 2016, the Salem Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (the JDR court) entered emergency r emoval orders. On August 22, 2016, t he JDR court entered preliminary removal orders and adj udicated that the children we re abused or neglected. On October 3, 2016, the JDR court entered the dispositional orders

. Once the children were in foste r care, the Department learned that several of the children had medical and dental needs. J .A.C. needed dental work becaus e two teeth were decaying and needed crowns. J.S.A.C. neede d penicillin. J.T. had an ear in fection and ringworm. The Department reviewed with mother the steps she would have t o take for the children to return home. The Department re quired mother to maintain con tact with her social worker and provide updates of any changes i n her address or phone number, obtain and maintain suitable housing, comply with her medicatio n, maintain her appointments, cooperate with service providers, participate in counsel ing, participate in visitation , participate in aparental capacity evaluation, submit to random dr ug screens, and participate in f amily partnership meetings. Mother struggled even with mai ntaining contact with the Departm ent, as her phone number frequently changed. Mother wa s evicted in August 2016 and did not obtain housing until April 2017. In December 2017, she faced eviction again for non-payme nt of rent. She did not participate in weekly counseli ng, as required, and lost her men tal health skill building services due to noncompliance. Mother was “extremely defensive” about h er medications and refused to- 6 - show them to the Department; t hus, the Department was unable to verify that sh e complied with her medication. Mother submitted to random drug tests as reque sted, and she tested positive for marijuana and cocaine on May 15, 2017 and June 12, 2017. On De cember 1, 2017, mother submitted to another drug test, which was negative. The Department provided weekl y visitation until the JDR court terminated mother’s parental rights, and then redu ced visitation to once per month. Mother was very consistent with her visitation. The Department referred mother for a parental capacity evaluat ion, which Dr. Jeannie Berger conducted in November 201 6. Dr. Berger identified sever al barriers to mother’s effective parenting, especially her mental health issues and the children ’s special needs. Dr. Berger explained that mother’s diagnos is of paranoid schizophrenia and bipolar disorder were the “most severe and challenging disorders ” and presented a “phenomenal b arrier” to effective parenting. Dr. Berger “could not find strong evi dence that [mother] was co mplaint with her medication treatment,” which was very concerning to her because compliance with medication was “of the upmost importance.” Furthermore , Dr. Berger opined that “[n]ot being in treatment and dealing with those [mental health disorders] on your own is also almost insurmountable in terms of being an effective parent . . . .” Dr. B erger also was concerned tha t mother was abusing illegal drugs because marijuana use could incr ease her paranoia and cocaine u se or withdrawal could mimic manic episodes. Consequently, D r. Berger did not recommend tha t the children be returned to mother’s care. On June 14, 2017, the JDR court entered orders terminating mother’s parental rights and approving the foster care goa l of adoption for each child. 3 Mother appealed to the circuit court.

3 The JDR court also terminated th e fathers’ parental rights, an d they appealed to the circuit court, which termina ted their parental rights.- 7 - On January 5, 2018, the parties appeared before the circuit co urt. Mother still had unstable housing and insecure finan ces. The Department could n ot confirm whether mother was compliant with her medication or counseling because she did not notify them of her situation. The social worker testified tha t mother was struggling to her m eet her own needs and was not able to meet the children’s needs. At the hearing, the Departmen t also provided an update on the children. J.A.E., who was in a prospective adoptive home , still had issues with stealing, anxiety, and anger; consequently, she went to weekly counseling a nd took medication for depressio n. J.A.E.’s counselor opined that she was making “some progr ess” and starting to trust and d iscuss her feelings. J.D.E. was still “extremely defiant” and took s everal medications for his mood and ADHD. He received in-home services and saw a psychi atrist. His counselor testifi ed that he “struggles on a daily basis in making safe choices a nd decisions.” She opined that h e needed a “structured and therapeutic” home, where the parents would be consistent. Alth ough J.D.E. was not in a prospective adoptive home, the D epartment had located a potenti al adoptive home for him. J.S.A.C., who also was not in a p rospective adoptive home, suff ered a sickle ce ll attack a few days before the circuit court he aring, and as a result, went to the emergency room for treatment. J.S.A.C. was on numerous medica tions and required parents who c ould manage his health situation. He also attended counseling and struggled academica lly. J.S.A.C.’s counselor testified that he w as gradually progressing and needed a home t hat provided structure and boundaries, as well as with parent s who could address his physi cal needs. J.A.C., who was in a prospective adoptive home, atte nded therapy and struggled with behavioral issues at school. J.A.C. was prescribed medica tion for his aggression. J.A.C.’s counselor opined that he was progressing and doing “really well. ” His counselor testified that he was in a “really good placement” and needed permanency. J.A.C. also was diagnosed wi th a heart murmur, which- 8 - required monitoring. J.T. was in a prospective adoptive home, where he was doing very well. Due to some behavioral issues, J .T. had been ref erred to play t herapy. Mother testified about her curre nt living and employment situa tions. She explained that she had been living in a three-b edroom apartment since April 20 17. She admitted that the landlord had filed a lawsuit against her for rent owed, but mot her testified that she paid the back rent through November 2017. She ac knowledged that she still ow ed money for December rent and late fees. Mothe r testified that on May 31, 2017, she star ted working at a job through a staffing agency, but her assignment with that agency ended Dece mber 13, 2017. When the staffing agency was unable to place her immediately in another job, she applied for other jobs through two different staffing age ncies. She expected to start a new job with a different agency after the circuit court hearing. Mother testified that she had b een seeing a psychiatrist for m edication for her mental health issues. She claimed that at their last appointment in O ctober 2017, the psychiatrist stopped her medication because she was doing better. When aske d if mother had proof that the doctor took her off of her medication, mother admitted that she did not have a letter. As of the circuit court hearing, she was seeing her counselor every two w eeks, but admitted that she did not have an updated letter from he r counselor with her recent appointments. She acknowledged that she had not always taken he r medication in the past and ha d missed some of her appointments for medication management. After hearing all of the eviden ce and arguments, the circuit c ourt terminated mother’s parental rights and approve d the goal of adoption. On June 19, 2018, the circuit court entered the order memorializing its ru ling. This appeal followed.- 9 - ANALYSIS Mother argues that the evidence was insufficient to terminate her parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). Mo ther asserts that she had substantial ly remedied the conditions that led to her children being placed in foster care. “On review, ‘[a] trial court is presumed to have thoroughly wei ghed all the evidence, considered the statutory requirements, and made its determinati on based on the child’s best interests.’” Castillo v. Loudoun C ty. Dep’t of Family Servs., 68 Va. App. 547, 558 (2018) (quoting Logan v. Fairfax Cty. D ep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128 (1991)). “Where, as here, the court hears the evidence ore tenus , its finding is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plai nly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Fauquier Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Ridgeway, 59 Va. App. 185, 190 (2011) (quotin g Martin v. Pittsylvania Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20 (1986)). The circuit court terminated m other’s parental rights under Co de § 16.1-283(C)(2), which provides that a court may ter minate parental rights if: The parent or parents, wit hout good cause, have been unwilling or unable within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 12 months from the date the child was placed in foster care to remedy substantially the condi tions which led to or required continuat ion of the child’s foster care p lacement, notwithstanding the reasonable and appropriate efforts of social, medical, mental h ealth or other rehabilitative agencies to such end. “[S]ubsection C termination d ecisions hinge not so much on the magnitude of the problem that created the origi nal danger to the child, but on t he demonstrated failure of the parent to make reasonable changes.” Toms v. Hanover Dep’t of S oc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 257, 271 (2005). The Roanoke City Department of Social Services had been offeri ng mother and the family services since 2012. The Department became involved wit h the family in early 2016 and- 10 - offered numerous services. Desp ite those services, mother was unable to remedy substantially the conditions that led to the children being placed, and remai ning, in foster care. The Department required mother to m aintain stable housing and be fi nancially stable. Mother was evicted from her apartment shortly after the Department placed the children in foster care. In April 2017, she obtained a new apartment, but by December 2017, she again faced eviction because she was behind on her rent payments. The Department of fered to assist mother with budgeting, but she refused to provide her social worker with a budget. When the circuit court asked why she never produced a bud get as requested, she said th at she did not know. Despite mother’s efforts, she remai ned financially unstable. In addition, mother’s medication management had been a concern since the Department first became involved with the f amily. Mother testified that a s of the circuit c ourt hearing, she was regularly seeing her counselor and that her psychiatrist ha d determined that she no longer needed her medication. However , mother did not provide any doc umentation to support her testimony about her current mental health status. When questio ned by the circuit court, she admitted that she previously had missed some appointments regar ding her medication and sometimes forgot to take her medicine. The circuit court found that mo ther had “made steps” and recog nized that mother wanted to parent her children; however , the circuit court also found t hat mother had “significant” mental health issues and was not compliant with her medication. The c ircuit court held that even if she had more time, mother would be unable to “equip herself to main tain the burden of caring for these children, all of whom [have] . . . special needs.” Credi ble evidence supports the circuit court’s conclusion. Dr. Berger opined that mother’s instabilit y, her mental health issues, and the children’s special needs were barr iers to her effective parenti ng. In addition, the children’s counselors all stressed the ch ildren’s need for structure. Mot her’s uncertain housing and- 11 - unstable employment over a prolonged period made it unlikely th at she would be able to provide the necessary stability and struc ture for the children. Furthe rmore, mother’s inability to comply with her medications caused concern over whether she could mana ge the children’s medication, especially since the Department presented evidence that J.S.A.C . had not received his required medication for four months prior t o the Department’s involvemen t. “It is clearly not in the best interests of a child to spend alengthy period of time waiting to find out when, or even if, a parent will be capable of resuming his [or her] responsibilities.” Ta ckett v. Arlington Cty. Dep’t of Human Servs., 62 Va. App. 296, 322 (2013) (quoting Kaywood v. H alifax Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540 (1990)). Based on the totality of the cir cumstances, the circuit court did not err in terminating mother’s parental right s under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2).
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s ruling is affirm ed. Affirmed.