COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Frank, Alst on and Senior Judge Coleman

JONATHAN SEWARD MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1551-09-2 PER CURIAM DECEMBER 22, 2009 MECKLENBURG COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY Leslie M. Osborn, Judge (Charles G. Butts, Jr.; Butts & Butts, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. (Melissa Fraser; Katherine Axson Keel, Guardian ad litem for the minor children; Gravitt & Gravitt, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on brief.

Jonathan Seward (father) appeals the termina tion of his residual pa rental rights to his children pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C). He ar gues the trial court erred in finding the Department of Social Services (the Department) made reason able efforts to investigate appropriate relative placements. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude this appeal is without merit. On appeal, we view the evidence “in the li ght most favorable to the prevailing party below and its evidence is afforded all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom.” Logan v. Fairfax County Dep’t of Human Dev. , 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991) (citation omitted). The Department “has an affirmative duty to investigate all reasonable options for placement with immediate relatives” before the termination of parental rights. Sauer v.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - Franklin County Dep’t of Soc. Servs. , 18 Va. App. 769, 771, 446 S.E.2d 640, 641 (1994) (emphasis added); see Hawthorne v. Smyth County Dep’t of Soc. Servs. , 33 Va. App. 130, 139-40, 531 S.E.2d 639, 644 (2000). Code § 16.1-283(A) provides that in a terminatio n of parental rights case “the court shall give a consideration to granting custody to rela tives of the child, including grandparents.” [B]efore the court grants custody of a child, under the provisions of Code § 16.1-283(A) the Depart ment has a duty to produce sufficient evidence so that the court may properly determine whether there are relatives willing and suitable to take custody of the child, and to consider such relatives in comparison to other placement options. Logan , 13 Va. App. at 131, 409 S.E.2d at 465. Notwithstanding this requirement, the agency seeking the termination does not have the duty “in every case to investigate the home of every re lative of the children, however remote, as a potential placement.” Sauer , 18 Va. App. at 771, 446 S.E.2d at 642. Nor is the agency required by law to perform “‘a va in and useless undertaking.’” Hawthorne , 33 Va. App. at 139, 531 S.E.2d at 644 (quoting Virginia Passenger & Power Co. v. Fisher , 104 Va. 121, 129, 51 S.E. 198, 201 (1905)). The duty to investigate is a rule of reason dependent u pon the particular facts

and circumstances of each individual case. “As long as evidence in the re cord supports the trial court’s ruling and the trial court has not abused its discretion, its ruli ng must be affirmed on appeal.” Brown v. Brown , 30 Va. App. 532, 538, 518 S.E.2d 336, 338 (1999). Here, the Department thoroughly investigated se veral relatives of the children’s mother. Appellant argues only that the Department failed to make “a diligent effort to seek relatives on the father’s side of the family to take the child ren.” Father concedes “he tried to get family members to take his children, but none came forw ard.” Father identifie d no relatives who may have been willing to take cust ody of the children. Furthermore, the Department attempted to

contact four of the children’s re latives, but received no response. The record does not indicate- 3 - whether those contacted were maternal or patern al family members. The Department was not required to investigate th e home of every relative of the child ren, especially those whom father failed to suggest to the Department. See Hawthorne , 33 Va. App. at 139, 531 S.E.2d at 644. In sum, the record demonstrates that th e Department satisfied its duty under Code § 16.1-283(A) to investigate and present evidence of the suitability of the children’s relatives as possible custodians prior to ordering the termination of father’s parental rights. Accordingly, the trial court’s decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.