COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Humphreys, O’ Brien and Senior Judge Bumgardner

CRYSTAL HAREFORD MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1796-14-3 PER CURIAM APRIL 7, 2015 HARRISONBURG-ROCKINGHAM SOCIAL SERVICES DISTRICT

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY Bruce D. Albe rtson, Judge (Shelly R. James, on brief), for appellant. (Rachel Errett Figura, Assistan t County Attorney; W. Andrew Harding, Guardian ad litem for the minor child; Convy & Harding, PLC, on brief), for appellee.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication. Crystal Hareford, mother , appeals a decision of the trial court terminating her parental rights to her minor child, K.H, pursuant to Code §§ 16.1-283(C)(2) and 16.1 -283(E)(i). On appeal, mother contends the trial court erred in finding the Ha rrisonburg-Rockingham Social Services District (HRSSD) presented clear and convi ncing evidence that termina ting her parental rights was appropriate and in K.H.’s best in terests “when he was not in an adoptive placement and his contact with his mother was not a danger to him.” Upon re viewing the record and brie fs of the parties, we conclude this appeal is without me rit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. “[A] termination pursuant to Code § 1 6.1-283(E)(i) must be based upon clear and convincing evidence that th e action is in the best inte rests of the child. See Code § 16.1-283(E). In addition, the trial court must find the parent’s rights to a sibling of the child previously had beenUNPUBLISHED- 2 - terminated. See Code § 16.1-283(E)(i).” Fields v. Dinwiddie Cnty. Dep’ t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 8, 614 S.E.2d 656, 659 (2005) (f ootnote omitted). In determining what is in the best interests of a child, this Court has stated: a court must evaluate and consider many factors, including the age and physical and mental condition of the child or children; the age and physical and mental condition of the parents; the relationship existing between each parent and each child; the needs of the child or children; the role which each parent has played, and will play in the future, in the upbringing and care of the child or children; and such other factors as are necessary in determining the best interests of the child or children. Barkey v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 66 2, 668, 347 S.E.2d 188, 191 (1986). K.H. was removed by HRSSD fr om the hospital shortly after hi s birth in January 2014. The termination hearing for K.H. wa s held on September 12, 2014, and the evidence was uncontested that mother’s parental rights to A.H., a sibling of K.H., were terminated on April 3, 2014. In addition, clear and convincin g evidence proved that termina tion was in the best interests of K.H. HRSSD had been involved with mother’s family since 2009. Mo ther made little progress in following through with services provided by HRSSD. In addition, mo ther was diagnosed with numerous mental and emotional diso rders and she was identified as in tellectually disabled. In 2013, a psychological evaluation indicated mother was at extremely high risk for child abuse. A psychologist opined that mother may be able to co-parent if another responsible adult was the primary caretaker of her childre n. HRSSD had provided mother with housing an d support in a structured setting, but mother wa s twice removed from th at environment due to rules violations. Thereafter, mother had difficu lty maintaining housin g and she moved freque ntly. Mother had limited employment. In addition, mother failed to progress past supervised visitation with K.H. Evidence was presented that K.H. is doing we ll in a foster home. The trial court found clear an d convincing evidence that HRSS D proved its case under Code §§ 16.1-283(C) and 16.1- 283(E). The trial court fo und mother relied on others to take care of her- 3 - problems and she lacked basic parenting skills. Her psychological testing indicated she has a low likelihood for change. She scored very low on a test for parent pr oblem solving, an d she appeared to be at a loss about how to interact with K.H. Th e trial court found this wa s a “chronic situation of inability” by mother. The court noted there were al so issues with unsanita ry living conditions in mother’s home. Furthermore, “[i]t is clearly not in the best in terests of a child to sp end a lengthy period of time waiting to find ou t when, or even if, a parent will be capable of resuming his or [or her] responsibilities.” Ka ywood v. Halifax Cnty. Dep’ t of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1990). Thus, clear and co nvincing evidence prov ed that termination of mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of K.H. In light of our conclusion that the termina tion under Code § 16.1-2 83(E)(i) should not be disturbed on appeal, we need no t consider mother’s alternative argument that th e evidence was insufficient to support termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). See Fields, 46 Va. A pp. at 8, 614 S.E.2d at 659. We summarily affirm the deci sion of the trial court. Affirmed.