COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Annunziata, Agee and Senior Judge Coleman 

KIMBERLEE ANN LEFLER 

 

v. Record Nos. 2706-00-3 and MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

 2707-00-3 PER CURIAM 

 MAY 8, 2001 

SMYTH COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

 OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SMYTH COUNTY 

Charles H. Smith, Jr., Judge 

 (Danny R. Lowe; Lowe & Money, P.C., on 

brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting 

on brief. 

 (Amelia L. Bland; Bland & Associates, P.C., 

on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting 

on brief. 

 Kimberlee Ann Lefler appeals the decision of the trial court 

terminating her residual parental rights to her two children 

pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C). Lefler contends the trial court 

erred in finding the evidence sufficient to terminate her rights. 

For the following reasons, we affirm. 

 Lefler and her husband had two children, a daughter born on 

December 26, 1992 and a son born on August 31, 1994. The parental 

rights of Lefler's husband were terminated on July 7, 1998. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication.
 

 - 2 - 

 At a hearing held on August 26, 1999, Melanie Carpenter, a 

foster care worker for the Smyth County Department of Social 

Services (the Department), testified that the Department had 

worked with the Lefler family since 1995, providing the family 

with "every service" that was available to them and furnishing 

some of the services on more than one occasion. The Department 

originally became involved with the family in response to 

complaints in 1995 that the children were being neglected and the 

parents were having numerous physical altercations. From December 

1995 to June 1996, the Department provided services for the Lefler 

family to assist them in maintaining a stable home environment at 

a cost of more than $3,400. The assistance included payments for 

rent and other in-home services. 

 In addition, Lutheran Family Services (LFS) worked with the 

family from November 1995 until February 1996. LFS provided 

crisis intervention, parenting techniques, and assistance to both 

parents in finding employment. They assisted the family in 

applying for Medicaid and food stamps. LFS also furnished housing 

and resource needs, including furniture, food and money for 

utilities. LFS discharged the family from the program because 

they failed to meet the goals of the program. At the time of the 

discharge, Lefler's husband no longer resided with the family, 

Lefler was in jail, and the children had been placed in foster 

care. 
 

 - 3 - 

 Family Preservation Services provided services for the family 

from April 1, 1996 to July 30, 1996. They provided transportation 

for Lefler to seek employment and to attend court hearings. They 

arranged for Lefler to attend substance abuse and domestic abuse 

support groups, and they arranged for day care so she could attend 

these meetings. These services were terminated when the family 

moved to Florida. 

 In April 1996, Lefler and her estranged husband had a 

physical altercation in the presence of the children, resulting in 

their son receiving scratches from broken glass. In May 1996, 

Lefler and her husband had a physical altercation during which 

Lefler cut her husband with a knife. The children were present in 

the home during that incident. 

 In addition, Lefler had numerous misdemeanor and felony 

convictions related to bad check charges. During one period of 

time, the Department provided respite care for the children on the 

weekends that Lefler spent in jail. 

 In September 1995, the court entered a preliminary 

protective order against the children's father, ordering him to 

stay away from the children. On February 8, 1996, Lefler signed 

temporary entrustment agreements entrusting the children to the 

Department to place them in a foster home while she was 

incarcerated for bad check convictions. Carpenter testified that 

the entrustment agreements "lasted" until March 3, 1996. The 
 

 - 4 - 

Department provided in-home services to assist Lefler when the 

children were returned to her care in March 1996 after her release 

from jail. 

 The children were back in foster care in September 1996. 

Prior to that placement, the Leflers had taken the children to 

Florida despite the court order that Lefler's husband was not to 

be in the presence of the children. While in Florida, the Leflers 

had a domestic dispute, and they were arrested. The children were 

placed in foster care in Florida, and the Florida Department of 

Health and Rehabilitative Services contacted the Department to 

take custody of the children. When Carpenter met the children at 

the airport on their return from Florida, the children attempted 

to bite and kick her. 

 When Lefler returned to Virginia from Florida, she was 

intermittently imprisoned for most of two years for numerous bad 

check charges. On September 3, 1996, the court awarded the 

Department temporary custody of the children. The Department 

placed the children in a foster home while Lefler was 

incarcerated. 

 Carpenter testified that when the children first came into 

foster care "they had a lot of behavioral problems." Both 

children were diagnosed with ADHD and speech problems. Both 

children were prescribed Ritalin. While Lefler was incarcerated, 

the daughter received speech and behavioral therapy. Carpenter 
 

 - 5 - 

testified the daughter's behavior "improved greatly" while she was 

in foster care, and she appeared to be "more calm" and "very 

polite." Carpenter also testified that the son's behavior 

improved a "great deal" while he was in foster care. 

 During Lefler's two-year period of incarceration, Carpenter 

spoke with Lefler several times concerning the service plan and 

the goals Lefler would need to meet within the first six months 

after her release from prison in order for the children to be 

returned to her. Carpenter advised Lefler that the Department had 

offered services "for so long that [they] felt like these children 

really needed to be in a stable home. They needed security." 

 Lefler was released from prison in June 1998. The children 

were placed back with Lefler in August 1998. Lefler had obtained 

housing and employment, and she had made progress in stabilizing 

her life. However, Lefler's husband moved in with the family, 

resulting in Lefler losing her housing. Lefler then moved to 

South Carolina with her husband and took the children with her in 

violation of a protective court order. At the time, the 

Department was the legal custodian of the children, and the 

protective order issued against Lefler's husband remained in 

effect. Lefler did not obtain the Department's permission to move 

the children out of state. 

 The Department retrieved the children from South Carolina in 

November 1998. At that time, the children showed aggressive 
 

 - 6 - 

behavior. Both children had severe cases of head lice, colds, and 

flea bites. They were dressed in dirty clothing, and the daughter 

had insect bites on her arms and legs that she had scratched until 

they bled. The son had an eye infection. Carpenter testified the 

children were "wild" and appeared to be angry with everyone. They 

destroyed their toys, made rude remarks, and the son kicked other 

children. 

 Lefler pled guilty to abduction charges related to removing 

the children to South Carolina, for which she served several 

months in jail. The Department again placed the children in 

foster care, and the foster care service plan goal was changed 

from "return to parent" to "adoption." The Department maintained 

legal custody of the children. Carpenter testified that the 

children visited Lefler while she was incarcerated, but they were 

"hard to control" after they visited her. Sometimes the children 

did not want to visit Lefler. 

 In total, the children were in foster care from February 8, 

1996 until March 1996, from September 1996 until August 1998, and 

from November 1998 until the hearing date of August 26, 1999. The 

son had spent over one-half of his life in foster care, and the 

daughter had spent over one-third of her life in foster care. 

 Carpenter opined that the best interests of the children 

would be promoted by terminating Lefler's residual parental 

rights. Carpenter stated that the children need a stable home 
 

 - 7 - 

environment which Lefler cannot provide. She testified that since 

1995, the Department had offered Lefler every available service in 

order to keep the children in her custody and that Lefler had not 

substantially benefited from the services. 

 The foster care plans dated August 18, 1998 provided that 

within a six-month time period Lefler was expected to accomplish 

the goals established in the service plan. The program goal was 

to return the children to Lefler upon her release from jail. In 

order to achieve that goal, Lefler was to secure housing, 

employment, stay away from her husband, and continue substance 

abuse counseling, if necessary, within six months of her release 

from jail. The evidence showed that Lefler failed to meet these 

goals. 

 In March 1999, the Department again filed a foster care 

service plan for each of the two children. This plan stated, "The 

goal of returning to parent was not selected for these children 

because placing them back with mother would place them at great 

risk for emotional and physical harm." This plan also indicated 

that the children had "special needs due to being hyperactive and 

having speech problems" and that the foster parents had "worked 

diligently" on helping the children. The foster parents also 

provided "the love, care and support" the children needed. 

Therefore, the Department changed the goal of the plans from 

"return to parent" to "adoption" for the children only after it 
 

 - 8 - 

became apparent that, despite the Department's rehabilitative 

efforts, Lefler was unable to achieve the goals of the first plan. 

 Lefler testified she intends to divorce her husband. While 

incarcerated, Lefler took parenting and anger management classes. 

She also received counseling for substance abuse. She stated she 

had not consumed alcohol for thirty-seven months, and she had 

obtained steady employment. At the time of the hearing, she had 

adequate housing. 

 In the opinion of the guardian ad litem for the children, the 

best interests of the children would be served by terminating 

Lefler's parental rights. 

 "When addressing matters concerning a child, including the 

termination of a parent's residual parental rights, the paramount 

consideration of a trial court is the child's best interests." 

Logan v. Fairfax County Dep't of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 

409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991). "'In matters of a child's welfare, 

trial courts are vested with broad discretion in making the 

decisions necessary to guard and to foster a child's best 

interests.'" Id. (citation omitted). The trial court's findings, 

"'when based on evidence heard ore tenus, will not be disturbed on 

appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.'" 

Id. (citation omitted). 

 The trial court terminated Lefler's residual parental rights 

pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(1). Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) 
 

 - 9 - 

provides, in pertinent part, that the residual parental rights of 

a parent of a child placed in foster care may be terminated if the 

court finds by clear and convincing evidence that termination is 

in the child's best interests and that 

[t]he parent . . . [has], without good 

cause, failed to maintain continuing contact 

with and to provide or substantially plan 

for the future of the child for a period of 

six months after the child's placement in 

foster care notwithstanding the reasonable 

and appropriate efforts of social, medical, 

mental health or other rehabilitative 

agencies to communicate with the parent 

. . . and to strengthen the parent-child 

relationship. 

 The evidence showed that the Lefler family had been "in the 

system" since 1995. The Department and several other family 

service organizations offered Lefler "every service available" to 

her from 1995 until 1999, attempting to assist Lefler in 

stabilizing her marriage and working to provide a healthy and 

secure environment for her two children. Despite this extensive 

assistance, Lefler made little substantive improvement in her 

ability to maintain a stable lifestyle. In addition, she failed 

to maintain continuing contact with the children when she 

repeatedly spent periods of time incarcerated, once for a 

continuous period of almost two years. 

 At one point, Lefler signed temporary entrustment agreements 

granting the Department the responsibility for the care and 

custody of her children while she was in jail. These recurring 
 

 - 10 - 

periods of incarceration, leaving the children in the care of the 

Department, are a factor to consider when determining whether 

termination of Lefler's residual parental rights is in the 

children's best interests. 

[W]hile long-term incarceration does not, 

per se, authorize termination of parental 

rights . . . it is a valid and proper 

circumstance which, when combined with other 

evidence concerning the parent/child 

relationship, can support a court's finding 

by clear and convincing evidence that the 

best interests of the child[ren] will be 

served by termination. 

Ferguson v. Stafford County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 14 Va. App. 333, 

340, 417 S.E.2d 1, 5 (1992). 

 Twice Lefler violated court orders by moving the children out 

of state with her husband and without advising the Department 

prior to the move. Lefler allowed her husband to live in her home 

despite the court's issuance of a protective order against him and 

despite the goal established by the Department that she stay away 

from her husband. Furthermore, the children have emotional and 

learning difficulties that are being addressed while they are in 

foster care. The children's behavior and speech problems improved 

while they were in foster care. The son had spent over one-half 

of his life in foster care, and the daughter had spent over 

one-third of her life in foster care. "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 
 

 - 11 - 

resuming his [or her] responsibilities." Kaywood v. Halifax 

County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 

495 (1990). 

 While the evidence shows that Lefler loves her children, the 

evidence shows that she has substantially failed to maintain 

continuing contact with the children and to provide or 

substantially plan for the future of the children for a period of 

six months after their placement in foster care, notwithstanding 

the efforts of the Department and other rehabilitative agencies. 

Although Lefler attended parenting and anger management classes 

while incarcerated, and she was employed at the time of the 

hearing, Lefler's past history shows that she has not made the 

necessary and substantial changes in her life to provide for the 

children if they were returned to her. 

 Therefore, the record supports the trial court's finding 

that the Department presented clear and convincing evidence 

satisfying the statutory requirements of Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) 

and establishing that termination of Lefler's residual parental 

rights is in the children's best interests. Accordingly, the 

decision of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.