COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Petty, AtLee and Senior Judge Clements 

RODNEY DALE BRADY, JR. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 1600-16-3 PER CURIAM 

 JANUARY 31, 2017 

PATRICK COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

 OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PATRICK COUNTY 

William N. Alexander, II, Judge Designate 

 (Harold E. Slate, II, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting 

on brief. 

 (Alan H. Black; Laura E. Frazier, Guardian ad litem for the minor 

children, on brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem 

submitting on brief. 

 Rodney Dale Brady, Jr. (father) appeals orders terminating his parental rights to two of his 

children. Father argues that the trial court erred by terminating his parental rights “with the basis of 

such termination being his incarceration and not within the children’s best interests.” Upon 

reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we affirm the decision of the trial court. 

BACKGROUND 

 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and grant 

to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Logan v. Fairfax Cty. Dep’t of 

Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991). 

 *

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

UNPUBLISHED 
- 2 - 

 Father and Jessica Dianne Gilley (mother) are the parents to two children, who were born 

in February 2013 and September 2014, and are the subject of this appeal.1 The Department had 

been involved with the family since October 2013, when a Child Protective Services complaint 

was founded against mother due to her home being in “deplorable” condition.2 In 2014, the 

Department received several more complaints against mother and father regarding the children. 

On September 5, 2014, father tested positive for methamphetamines. On September 26, 2014, 

the children came into the Department’s care when mother gave birth to the parties’ youngest 

child, and he tested positive for marijuana and amphetamines. 

 On October 22, 2014, father received an active sentence of two years for burglary and 

larceny, third offense. On March 31, 2015, father received an active sentence of two years and 

eleven months for violating his probation. 

 On January 7, 2016, the Patrick County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court 

(the JDR court) entered orders terminating father’s parental rights to his two children pursuant to 

Code § 16.1-283(B) and (C)(2). Father appealed.3

 On April 11, 2016, the parties appeared before the circuit court. Father testified that he 

wanted the children to be returned to mother’s custody. He expected to be released from 

incarceration in 2017. 

 The circuit court also heard that both children were doing well in foster care and were 

with foster parents who wanted to adopt the children.

 1

 Mother has three other children, who are not the subject of this appeal. Brady is not the 

biological father to mother’s three other children. 

2

 At the time, father was in jail. 

3

 The JDR court also terminated mother’s parental rights, and she appealed to the circuit 

court. The circuit court terminated her parental rights, and she appealed to this Court. See 

Gilley v. Patrick Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., Record No. 1601-16-3. 
- 3 - 

 After hearing the evidence, the circuit court terminated father’s parental rights pursuant 

to Code § 16.1-283(B) and (C)(2). The circuit court noted that mother and father evaded the 

Department from May 2014 through October 2014, and then, mother did not maintain adequate 

contact with the Department from October 2014 through August 2015. Mother’s actions 

prevented the Department from “achieving a goal of returning the children to the parent’s home.” 

Furthermore, the circuit court noted that the parents’ “persistent” drug use proved that the 

parents “did not adequately cure the abuse and neglect condition that caused the removal from 

the home.” 

 This appeal followed. 

ANALYSIS 

 Father argues that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights based on his 

incarceration and that the termination of parental rights was not in the children’s best interests. 

Father did not endorse the final orders. There is no transcript from the circuit court hearing, and the 

written statements of facts do not include the parties’ arguments. 

 “No ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless an 

objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling, except for good cause 

shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice.” Rule 5A:18. 

 We “will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial court.” 

Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998). “The purpose of 

Rule 5A:18 is to allow the trial court to correct in the trial court any error that is called to its 

attention.” Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 514, 404 S.E.2d 736, 737 (1991) (en banc). 

 The record does not indicate that father preserved his arguments for appeal. Therefore, 

this Court will not consider them. Rule 5A:18. 
- 4 - 

CONCLUSION 

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

Affirmed.