COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Humphreys, Huff and Senior Judge Clements

TITO LOPEZ ROJAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2332-11-3 PER CURIAM

MAY 29, 2012

ROANOKE CITY DEPARTMENT

OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE

Jonathan M. Apgar, Judge

(Thomas E. Wray, on brief), for appellant.

(Timothy R. Spencer, Acting City Attorney; Heather P. Ferguson, 

Assistant City Attorney; Joseph F. Vannoy, Guardian ad litem for 

the minor children, on brief), for appellee.

Tito Lopez Rojas, appellant, appeals the order of termination of his residual parental rights 

to his three children, M.R., T.R., and S.S. Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in 

finding he failed to demonstrate the ability to remedy the conditions which led to the children’s 

continued foster care placement, pursuant to Code § 16.1-283. Upon review of 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. Rule 5A:27.

When considering termination of parental rights, “the paramount 

consideration of a trial court is the child’s best interests.” “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 plainly wrong 

or without evidence to support it.”

Fauquier Cnty. v. Ridgeway, 59 Va. App. 185, 190, 717 S.E.2d 811, 814 (2011) (citations omitted).

 * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
- 2 -

Connie E. Summit is the mother of appellant’s three children. Her parental rights to the 

three children had been terminated while appellant was in Mexico, his place of origin, for about a 

year. Three months after the mother’s rights were terminated, appellant returned to the United 

States and began working with the Department of Social Services with a goal of returning the 

children home. The Department offered services and imposed conditions for appellant to meet in an 

effort to return the children to him. Appellant had to attend parenting and English as a Second 

Language (ESL) classes, cooperate with supervised visitation, obtain independence and separate

housing from Summit, maintain stable employment, and submit to a psychological evaluation.

The Department sought to terminate appellant’s residual parental rights under Code 

§ 16.1-283(B) and 16.1-283(C)(2). Code § 16.1-283(B) states, in pertinent part,

The residual parental rights of a parent or parents of a child found by 

the court to be neglected or abused and placed in foster care . . . may 

be terminated if the court finds, based upon clear and convincing

evidence, that it is in the best interests of the child and that:

1. The neglect or abuse suffered by such child presented a serious 

and substantial threat to his life, health or development; and

2. It is not reasonably likely that the conditions which resulted in 

such neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected or eliminated so 

as to allow the child’s safe return to his parent or parents within a 

reasonable period of time.

Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) provides, in pertinent part,

The residual parental rights of a parent or parents of a child placed in 

foster care . . . may be terminated if the court finds, based upon clear 

and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interests of the child 

and that . . . [t]he 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 was placed in foster care to 

remedy substantially the conditions 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. 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 
- 3 -

to or required continuation of the child’s foster care placement . . . 

shall constitute prima facie evidence of this condition.

When appellant returned from Mexico, the children had already been found to be neglected 

and abused by their mother and were placed in foster care. Although appellant completed the 

parenting course, he was not able to apply what he had learned to his interaction with the children. 

The supervised visits were chaotic, and appellant was unable to redirect the children when they 

were acting inappropriately. Although appellant would replicate techniques he was shown during 

the visits, he would not apply the same skills on following visits. Further, appellant had difficulty 

communicating with the children because he speaks very little English and the children speak only 

English. Although appellant attended some ESL classes, he did not consistently attend or develop 

any proficiency in English. Appellant did not know or understand the special needs of his children, 

and even thought his youngest child had a heart problem, when she actually had severe asthma. 

Appellant did obtain housing independent from Summit, but continued to rely on her to

communicate with the agencies and she appeared at the termination hearing in support of appellant.

The psychological examination revealed that appellant had little capability of making 

concrete plans for the future and that he had developmental delays which were reflected in his 

language difficulties, even in his native language. Although the psychologist reported that perhaps 

over the long term appellant might be able to improve some of his skills, it would require a great 

deal of determination. That determination was not demonstrated in his cooperation with the 

agencies working with him, as evidenced by his missed appointments and failure to stay in touch 

with the various providers to check on his children. “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 capable of 

resuming his or [or her] responsibilities.” Kaywood v. Halifax Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 10 

Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1990).
- 4 -

Notably, the evidence showed that the children were thriving and their performance in 

school, developmentally and socially, was improving while in foster care. The children had formed 

a strong bond with their foster parents, who were tending to their emotional and physical needs. All 

this evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that appellant was not able to correct or eliminate 

the problems that led to foster care placement and that it was in the children’s best interests to 

terminate his residual parental rights.

Accordingly, the trial court did not err by terminating appellant’s residual parental rights to 

all three children. For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ruling is affirmed.

Affirmed.