COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Chafin, Mal veaux and Senior Judge Haley

LOREN HUNT MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0811- 18-3 PER CURIAM MARCH 12, 2019 CITY OF ROANOKE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE David B. Carson, Judge (Brittany F. Gordon; Steidle L aw Firm, on brief), for appella nt. Appellant submitting on brief. (Daniel J. Callaghan, City Att orney; Heather P. Ferguson, Ass istant City Attorney; Shannon L. Jones, Guardian ad litemfor the minor child, on brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on brief.
Loren Hunt (mother) argues th at the circuit court erred in ter minating her parental rights to her children and approving the f oster care goal of adoption. U pon reviewing the r ecord and briefs of the parties, we conclude tha t the circuit court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the circuit court.
BACKGROUND “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)).

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this op inion is not designated fo r publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - Mother is the biological paren t to two children, J.M. and M.H. , who are the subject of this appeal. 1 The City of Roanoke Department of Social Services (the Depart ment) first became involved with the family in 2010 b ecause of allegations of poor parenting of J.M. and illegal drug use in front of the child. T he Department received additi onal complaints in 2011 and 2013 due to drug use and inadequate sup ervision, as well as the fact that M.H. was born substance exposed to cocaine and marijuana. In March 2016, mother was partic ipating in Dru g Court, stemmin g from a charge of selling leased property. She and t he children were living at t he Rescue Mission. On March 18, 2016, she tested positive for drugs a nd was incarcerated for th irty days. Mother told the Department that the children coul d not stay with their biologic al fathers because James McGriff was incarcerated and she recentl y had obtained a protective ord er against Eric Hunt. Mother indicated that a friend could car e for the children while she w as incarcerated. Mother also advised that J.M. was diagnose d with attention deficit hyperact ivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder ( ODD), and sensory processing iss ues, and he was taking prescription medicine for his behavioral issues. After speaking with mother’s fri end who agreed to care for the children, the Department transported J.M. and M.H. to the friend’s home on March 18, 201 6. At the time, J.M. was six years old, and M.H. was tw o years old. On March 21, 2016, moth er’s friend informed the Department that she only could c are for the children for a few more days because she did not have child care for the childre n while she was at work and the children required constant supervision. Mother did not have any other family or friends w ho could act as alternative placements, so on March 22, 2016, the Department obtained tempo rary legal custody of the

1 James M. McGriff is the biolog ical father of J.M., and Eric Hu nt is the biological father of M.H.- 3 - children. The Department placed the children in separate foste r homes because of J.M.’s behaviors toward M.H. The City of Roanoke Juvenile and Domesti c Relations District Court (the JDR court) adjudicated tha t the children were abused or ne glected, and on May 17, 2016, it entered the dispositional order. When the children entered foste r care, the Department reviewed with mother what was required of her before the child ren could return home. Mother was required to maintain contact with the Department, obtain and m aintain stable housing and emp loyment, complete a psychological and parental capaci ty evaluation and follow throu gh with all recommendations, participate in psychiatric serv ices and comply with medication management, complete a parenting class, participate in individual counseling, complete a substance abuse assessment and follow through with all recommendations, submit to random drug screens, complete a domestic violence assessment and follow through with all recommendations , and participate in visitation. Mother completed the domestic violence assessment and the recommended eighteen-week domestic violence alternative pr ogram. She also completed two parenting classes and received feedback from a parenting coac h after visitations. In addition , mother completed the substance abuse assessment and recommended treatment program. However, i n March 2017, mother was arrested for violating her pr obation after she tested positive for marijuana. Mother also consistently parti cipated in visita tion. Initially , the Department arranged for mother to visit with J.M. and M.H. together. However, J.M. wou ld try to parent M.H., and then, the children would become “very a ggressive.” Mother had a hard time redirecti ng the children, so the Department decided to separate the visits. When J.M. entered foster care , he “really str uggled with any ty pe of boundaries, any type of rules,” and it was apparent that he had been in an “unstruct ured environment.” The Department continued with J.M.’s medication management and arra nged for therapeutic day- 4 - treatment services at his ne w school and individual counseling. For the first couple of visitations with mother, J.M. had “no respons e at all,” but with subsequent visitations, J.M. became agitated before the visit and said that he did not want to go to the vis itation. During the visitations, mother tried to engage J.M., but he was aggressive and became “ out of control physically.” The social worker gave mother feedb ack, to which mother was recepti ve. However, the social worker noticed that mother had di fficulty implementing what she was taught. At the end of each visit, J.M. displayed “a lot of anger” and c ried. J.M. said that he no longer wanted to visit with mother. On August 19, 2016, J.M. c ried and refused to go in the building to visit with mother . The social workers did not beli eve that it was in J.M.’s best interests to carry him inside a nd force him to visit with mothe r. After that incident, the Department stopped all in-pers on visitations betw een mother and J.M.; however, it did allow them to have phone contact. The socia l worker noticed that J.M .’s behavior improved and his anxiety level decreased after the in-person visits stopped. In September 2016, Miles Davidson, a licensed social worker, b egan working with J.M. and his anxiety issues. In additi on to J.M.’s other diagnoses, Davidson diagnosed J.M. with post-traumatic stress disorder . Davidson met with mother on fo ur occasions in November and December 2016 and found that she did not have “much space to ha ve attention for [J.M.], that she had a lot of her own issues that she was focused on.” Davi dson testified that J.M. needed “a very clear structure, stable ro utine.” Davidson emphasized tha t J.M.’s caregivers needed to understand “how to handle his tantrums, [and] how to sort of pr ovide kind and firm boundaries with him.” After his sessions w ith mother, Davidson concluded that mother would not be able to meet those requirements. M.H. also showed signs of trauma when he entered foster care. When M.H. entered foster care, he was non-verbal , anxious, “[v]ery withdrawn and sad,” and intolerant of physical- 5 - affection. He saw a gastrointest inal doctor because he had “co nstant diarrhea” for months, and the doctor determined that the diarrhea was in response to stre ss, especially after visitations. Robin Wiley was M.H.’s counselor from July 2016 until June 2017 . Wiley also noticed that M.H. experienced “great anxi ety” before and after visitati on, so she recommended that the Department reduce mother’s vis itation with M.H., which it did i n January 2017. M.H.’s anxiety appeared to lessen once the visita tions decreased. Subsequentl y, the visitations stopped, and M.H.’s foster mother noticed a d rastic improvement in M.H. He suddenly began talking more, and he started to accept physical affection. His aggression at daycare and presc hool decreased. By September 2017, M.H.’s new couns elor reported that M.H. was doing “[r]eally well.” In addition to offering visitation a nd counseling services for the children, the Department required mother to participate in a psychological and parental capacity evaluation with Dr. Klaire Mundy, which she did on September 8, 2016. Dr. Mundy reviewed mother’s childhood history, as well as her history of substance abuse and mental illness. Mother had been diagnosed with depression, anxiety, bip olar disorder, and bor derline personali ty disorder. She participated in counseling and was prescribed m edication, but did not always ta ke it. In addition, mother experienced a lot of trauma and instability in her childhood. Dr. Mundy opined that mother’s “childhood history had modeled an unstable foundation of parent ing and the likelihood of impaired attachment is likely a result of the abuse and neglect she experienced in her own upbringing.” Dr. Mundy stated tha t it would “take pretty much a lifetime” for mother to change her ways and be able to paren t her children effectively. Dr. M undy recommended that mother participate in “consistent a nd ongoing” psychiatric and psychol ogical services. After receiving reports from th e children’s counselors and Dr. Mundy, the Department required mother and the children t o participate in attachment a ssessments with Susan Brammer, which mother did on April 13, 2017. B rammer explained that “[i ]f a child does not have a secure- 6 - attachment foundation from birth, t hen the rest of development is affected by this.” Insecure or disordered attachment negativel y affects a child’s behavior, em otions, cognitive ability, and future relationships. The assessment appointment was the first time that mother had seen J.M. since their in-person visits stopped in the summer of 2016. Mother’s inter actions with J.M. were “quite concerning” to Brammer because mother displayed such an “immature” parenting ability. Mother had difficulty setting limits and became “frustrated,” w hich exacerbated J.M.’s behaviors. Despite the fact tha t mother had completed her pare nting classes at the time, Brammer concluded that mother “had no clue” how to help J.M. ca lm down once he became aggressive and disorganized. Brammer also discovered that mo ther “did not set any limits for dangerous or aggressive play” and displayed “childish” a nd “juvenile” behavior with M.H . Mother and M.H. became so loud that Brammer had to ask t hem to quiet down because they we re in an office building. Mother asked her “how do I do that. ” Brammer described mother as “a boisterous playmate,” not a parent. Brammer explained that both chi ldren were “showing significant signs” of post-traumatic stress disorder after the visit s, and she recommended that visi tations with mother be terminated. Although mother had been in counse ling “for an extended period of time” when the assessment was conducted, mother “was tri ggered by the boys into her disor ganized behavior.” Brammer opined that if the children were returned to mother’s custody, “they would continue to form attachment with her that is di sorganized, which would lead to c ontinued behavioral problems.” Brammer was not optimistic that attachment therapy would be suc cessful because mother was so “disorganized.” After receiving the attachment assessment, the Department stopped mother’s phone contact with J.M. and visitations with M.H.- 7 - On August 22, 2017, the JDR court deni ed the Department’s peti tion to terminate mother’s parental rights and disa pproved the foster care plan w ith the goal of adoption. The Department appealed the JDR court’s rulings to the circuit court. The parties appeared before th e circuit court on January 24 an d April 3, 2018. 2 The Department presented evidence th at mother did not have stable e mployment while the children were in foster care. She had jobs at several different establi shments for short periods of time, and at the time of the January 2018 hearing, she had been emplo yed at a job for three months. By the April hearing, mother had a new job because her former e mployer went bankrupt. Mother testified that she was working eighteen hours per week a nd could only work part-time because she received SSI. The Department also presented evidence that mother had not had stable housing since 2011. At first, she and the childre n were living at the Rescue Mission, and then mother was incarcerated, which led to the c hildren ultimately being placed in foster care. When mother was released from jail, she went b ack to the Rescue Mission and the n transferred to the Tabitha Program within the mission, which was intended to help her with self-sufficiency. After having difficulty with the Tabitha Program for several weeks, mother w as removed from the program. In August 2016, mother lived wit h her girlfriend and her girlfr iend’s three children at a hotel and, then, in September 2016, moved with her girlfriend and the chil dren to an apartment. In February 2017, the Department info rmed mother that her girlfrie nd had an “extensive CPS history,” which would prevent th e Department from placing the c hildren with them. Despite the warning, mother and her girlfrie nd continued to live together. In June 2017, mother and her girlfriend were evicted from the apartment and moved to another hotel. In November 2017, mother started renting a three-b edroom apartment, and she told the Department that her girlfriend

2 Eric Hunt was not served in time to participate in the circuit court hearing.- 8 - did not live there. The Department deemed the apartment to be suitable for the children, so long as mother’s girlfriend did not live with her. At the April hea ring, mother testified that she continued to live in t he same residence. The Department explained that although mother had completed a “great deal of services,” it remained concerned that mothe r “still struggles to implement the services that she’s learned and the skills that she’s learned.” Even after she took the parenting classes, mother could not set boundaries with the children and c ould not de-escalate the situ ation when the children became aggressive or loud. Furthermore , the children had experienced “significant trauma” while in her care, but she refused to believe t hat the children were traumat ized or neglected. Mother presented additional evid ence that she had completed th e required services, including counseling. Jordonna Anderson, mother’s counselor si nce February 2016, testified that mother consistently attended c ounseling. Anderson believed tha t mother “could always benefit from the in home and mental heal th support,” as well as mental health skills building. Anderson opined that with that support, m other was “capable of raising t he children.” Mother testified about her participation in Drug Court. As of the April 2018 hearing, mother remained in Drug Court , but hoped to graduate in a year. She explained that she still had fifty-two out of one hundred hours of c ommunity service to comp lete, and she still had to pay her restitution and fees. At the conclusion of all of the e vidence, the circuit court as ked the parties to submit their closing arguments in writi ng, which they did. On April 24, 201 8, the circuit court issued a letter opinion finding that it was in the c hildren’s best interest to terminate mother’s parental rights and- 9 - approve the goal of adopti on. On April 27, 2018, the circuit c ourt entered a final order memorializing its rulings . This appeal followed. 3
ANALYSIS “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)). Mother argues that the circ uit court erred by terminating her parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(B) and (C)(2) and approv ing the goal of adoption. M other emphasizes that she complied with the Department’s requests, including completing s ubstance abuse treatment, maintaining stable housing and emp loyment, participating in the psychological and parental capacity evaluations, pa rticipating in the attachment assessmen t, and consistently participating in visitation. Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) states that a court may terminate parent al rights if: [t]he parent or parents, w ithout good cause, have been unwillin g 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.

3 The circuit court also termina ted McGriff’s parental rights an d approved the goal of adoption for J.M. McGriff appealed the circuit court’s rulings . See McGriff v. City of Roanoke Dep’t of Soc. Servs., Record No. 0872-18-3.- 10 - “[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 Department referred mother to numerous services and acknow ledged that she “took advantage of a number of the services offered to her.” Despite all of the services, however, the circuit court found that mother was unable to remedy substantia lly the conditions that led to and required continuation of foste r care for the children. The Department offered visitati on to mother, but eventually had to stop the visitations because of the negative impacts on the children. The children were anxious, aggressive, and out of control. The visitation s upervisors noticed that although m other took parenting classes and received feedback, she was unable to implement the parenting sk ills that she had been taught. The Department presented evidenc e that both children’s behavior s improved once visitations were reduced and stopped. J.M.’s counselor testified that moth er was focused on her own issues, instead of focusing on J.M.’s need s. M.H.’s counselor testifie d that mother did not seem to understand attachment issues a nd what to expect from M.H. Both Dr. Mundy and Brammer expressed concern about mother’s ab ility to parent. Dr. Mundy testified that it would “ take pretty much a lifetime” for mother to change her behavior and be able to paren t her children effectively. Dr. M undy noted that mother had a tendency “to place her own emotiona l needs above that of her ch ildren, leaving their safety and well-being secondary to her own i nterpersonal desires.” Similarly, Brammer noticed that mother made “self-centered decisions without regard for her children’s well-being.” Brammer opined that mother “lacks the secure a ttachment patterns, emotional ma turity, parenting skills, and- 11 - psychological resources which w ould be necessary to help [the c hildren] recover and thrive if they are placed in [her] care.” At the time of the April 2018 hearing, the children had been i n foster care for two years. The Department’s evidence prove d that both children had special needs. J.M.’s counselor testified that J.M. was “very s ensitive to changes” and needed structure, a routine, and a “safe [and] stable home.” J.M.’s c ounselor opined that it was import ant for J.M.’s caregivers to “understand how to work with a c hild who has a trauma history a nd how to handle his tantrums, how to sort of provide kind and f irm boundaries with him.” M.H .’s counselor testified that M.H. suffered from trauma and struggl ed with attachment issues. How ever, his counselor was working on attachment therapy with him, and she saw progress wi th him and his foster mother. M.H.’s counselor also stressed t he importance of structure, sta bility, and routine for M.H. The evidence proved that as of the ci rcuit court hearing, mother wa s unable to provide the structure and stability that the children needed. “It is clearly not in t he 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 resum ing his [or her] responsibilities.” Tackett v. Arlington Cty. Dep’t of Human Servs., 62 Va. App. 29 6, 322 (2013) (quoting Kaywood v. Halifax Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540 (1990)). Considering the totality of the evidence, the circuit court di d not err in terminating mother’s parental rights unde r Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). “When a trial court’s j udgment is made on alternative grounds, we need onl y consider whether any one o f the alternatives is sufficient to sustain the judgment of the t rial court, and if so, we need notaddress the other grounds.” Kilby v. Culpeper Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 55 Va. App. 106, 108 n.1 (2009); see also Fields v. Dinwiddie Cty. Dep’t of So c. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 8 (2005) (t he Court affirmed termination of parental rights under one subs ection of Code § 16.1-283 and did not need to address termination- 12 - of parental rights pursuant to a nother subsection). Therefore, we will not consider whether the circuit court erred in termina ting mother’s parental rights und er Code § 16.1-283(B). 4
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s ruling is affirm ed. Affirmed.

4 With respect to mother’s challe nge of the foster care goal of adoption, “[o]ur decision to affirm the termination order nece ssarily subsumes this aspect o f [her] appeal because a preponderance-of-the-evidence st andard governs judicial modific ations of foster care plans.” Toms, 46 Va. App. at 265 n.3.