COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judges Kelsey and McClanahan 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

HEATHER RENEE IRVINE PRICE WILLIAMS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 BY 

v. Record No. 0698-10-3 JUDGE ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN 

 FEBRUARY 1, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

 FOR THE COUNTY OF CAMPBELL 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAMPBELL COUNTY 

John T. Cook, Judge 

 F.E. “Tripp” Isenhour, III (Caskie & Frost, on brief), for appellant. 

 David W. Shreve, Campbell County Attorney, for appellee. 

 Grady W. Donaldson, Jr. (Schenkel & Donaldson, P.C., on brief), 

Guardian ad litem for the minor child. 

Heather Williams (Williams) appeals the circuit court’s decision terminating her parental 

rights to her daughter, H.W., pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B) and 16.1-283(C)(2). Williams 

argues: (i) the circuit court erred in admitting into evidence two certain internet generated 

documents, because those documents, allegedly containing her comments, were not properly 

authenticated; and (ii) there was insufficient evidence to support the termination decision. For 

the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 “We view the evidence in the ‘light most favorable’ to the prevailing party in the circuit 

court and grant to that party the benefit of ‘all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom.’” 

Toms v. Hanover Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 257, 262, 616 S.E.2d 765, 767 (2005) 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 -

(quoting Logan v. Fairfax County Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 

463 (1991)). 

 On November 28, 2006, the Department of Social Services for Campbell County (DSS) 

received a complaint at approximately 9:00 a.m. that a young child—later identified as H.W., 

who was 22 months old at the time—was being left alone at home. Tecora Johnson, then a DSS 

child protective services investigator, testified that according to the report “the mother takes off 

early in the morning and sometimes comes back in one hour, sometimes longer.” On this 

particular morning, “[t]he neighbors were hearing the child crying inside the house.” 

 Johnson, along with Campbell County Deputy Sheriff Saunders, investigated the 

complaint. After arriving at the home at approximately 10:00 a.m. and knocking on all the doors 

with no response, Johnson and Saunders observed a woman, later identified as Williams, H.W.’s 

mother, walking toward the house from across the street. When Johnson told Williams why she 

and Deputy Saunders were there, Williams stated that, if H.W. had been left alone, it was for 

only a few minutes because the child’s father, Joshua Williams (Joshua), “must have just left” 

before they arrived. 

 Upon entering the home, Johnson was confronted with an “overwhelming” odor of cat 

urine and feces, and saw a cat litter box “overflowing” with feces. Johnson then discovered that 

H.W. was alone in a bedroom next to the dining room, that the bedroom door was blocked only 

by a small, old, wooden baby gate, and that a dog—a pit bull—was in the dining room chained to 

a partition pole, which appeared to be loose as a result of the dog pulling on it. Because of these 

conditions, Johnson became concerned for H.W.’s safety. When Johnson confronted Williams 

about these conditions, Williams just repeated that the child’s father was there before she left and 

that she did not leave the child alone. Johnson asked Williams to meet her at DSS’s office later 

that morning, along with Joshua. 
- 3 -

 Before Williams and Joshua arrived at the office, Johnson learned that Joshua had been at 

work with his boss since early that morning. Johnson also obtained information indicating 

Williams and Joshua had a history of domestic violence. During her interview with Williams, 

Johnson confronted Williams about Joshua’s location that morning, at which point Williams said 

she could not remember, and added that there were a “lot of things” she could not remember. 

Williams attributed her inability to remember to the fact that she was unable to regularly take her 

prescribed medication, Zoloft, because she could not afford it. She also stated that she was 

bipolar and needed counseling. During the interview with Joshua, Johnson learned that Williams 

had actually driven Joshua to work that morning. At the end of the meeting, Johnson had the 

couple sign a safety plan requiring, among other things, that their home be cleaned and that H.W. 

be under constant supervision. The plan also recommended that Williams follow through with 

mental health treatment. Johnson further advised Williams and Joshua that DSS would seek a 

protective order to insure compliance with the safety plan and continue to assess their 

circumstances. Johnson completed her investigation, and an ex parte preliminary protective 

order was entered on November 30, 2006. 

 A hearing on the preliminary protective order was held on December 6, 2006, at which 

time the Campbell County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (J&DR court) 

concluded it was in H.W.’s best interest to remove her from the home due to, inter alia, 

Williams’ mental health issues and recent incidents of domestic violence between her and 

Joshua. The J&DR court entered an order to that effect, and DSS took custody of H.W. The 

court also ordered Williams to submit to a psychological evaluation. 

 When DSS took custody of H.W., the child was engaging in self-destructive behavior, 

which included “banging” her head against the floor. Deborah Maxey, a licensed family 

therapist and board certified traumatologist, opined that the genesis for this behavior was stress 
- 4 -

the child was experiencing due to “some sort of disruption in her life that was going on between 

her mother and father.” 

 H.W. was first placed in a non-relative foster care home. Shelia Vernoy, H.W.’s paternal 

aunt, was subsequently approved for foster care, and H.W. was placed with her in December 

2006. This placement lasted for only one week, however, due to conflicts in Vernoy’s work 

schedule. H.W. was then returned to her previous foster care family. 

 On January 5, 2007, DSS filed its initial foster care service plan with the J&DR court, 

which the court approved by order dated February 6, 2007. The program goal under the plan 

was to return H.W. to her parents, with a target date of December 2007. The “initial service need 

for the family” in terms of working towards that goal was “treatment for [Williams’] mental 

health, the need for proper supervision of [H.W.], safe and sanitary housing, and no instances of 

domestic violence.” The plan required that Williams “[c]omplete [a] psychological evaluation”; 

“[c]omplete all recommendations made in the psychological evaluation”; “[c]ooperate with 

necessary services and goals deemed necessary by services providers and DSS”; “[p]articipate 

in parenting classes”; “[m]aintain consistent contact with services providers and DSS staff”; 

“[m]aintain honest communication with services providers and DSS staff”; “[m]aintain 

consistent and appropriate visitation with [H.W.]”; and “[r]efrain from acts of domestic 

violence.” 

DSS noted in this initial foster care service plan that, pursuant to the J&DR court’s 

December 6, 2006 order, DSS had referred Williams to Piedmont Psychiatric Center (PPC) for a 

psychiatric evaluation. DSS further noted that, due to Williams’ immediate “mental health 

needs,” DSS had also referred her to the Central Virginia Community Services Board and 

Johnson Health Services for counseling and medication management. 
- 5 -

 Doctor Stacey Felmlee, a licensed clinical psychologist at PPC, conducted Williams’ 

psychological evaluation and issued her report on January 19, 2007. Felmlee diagnosed 

Williams as suffering from “Adjustment Disorder With Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood” 

and “Depressive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (by history),” and recommended that 

Williams pursue mental health treatment for her depression and anxiety. Felmlee also 

recommended in her report that Williams and Joshua attend couples’ counseling “with a focus on 

effective communication and nonviolent conflict-resolution,” given that their relationship was 

“at risk for continued instability, volatility, and domestic violence, which is not a healthy or safe 

environment in which to raise a child,” that Williams “attend and actively participate in anger 

management classes” in an effort to help her “resolve conflict in productive and nonviolent 

ways,” and that Williams “attend and actively participate in both child development and 

parenting classes” due to her inadequate knowledge regarding “child development and 

age-appropriate parenting techniques.” 

In making these recommendations, Felmlee noted in her report, among other things, that 

Williams “acknowledged passive suicidal ideation” and had a “history of superficial cutting,” 

that Williams “tended to focus on her needs and feelings rather than those of her daughter,” and 

that Williams had “difficulty taking responsibility for her behavior resulting in her daughter’s 

removal and blamed DSS and her neighbors for her current situation.” Felmlee also noted that 

Williams’ “childhood history, poor social judgment, emotional needs, volatile relationship with 

her partner, and lack of knowledge about child development and age-appropriate parenting 

techniques place[d] her at risk for developing poor parent-child boundaries, exposing her 

daughter to domestic violence, and for neglectful behavior, even if unintentional.” 

DSS filed a foster care service plan review with the J&DR court on July 3, 2007, in 

which the program goal was still to return H.W. to her parents with a target date of December 
- 6 -

2007. At that time, Williams and Joshua had married, and it was reported that they were 

cooperating with DSS relative to their service plan requirements; but they were struggling with 

their finances and would need to be “working with the home based provider regarding budgeting 

skills.” 

By the time DSS filed its subsequent foster care service plan review on November 19, 

2007, however, the couple had separated. DSS reported that Joshua moved out of the home in 

September and moved in with a relative; Williams was later evicted, and had moved in with a 

friend. It was also reported that, “[w]ith their marital status in question, they were unable to 

focus on regaining custody of their child,” and “fell back into old lifestyle patterns.” At the 

December 19, 2007 permanency planning hearing that followed, DSS requested and received 

from the J&DR court a three-month extension in order to continue working with the parents 

towards the goal of returning H.W. to them. 

 On March 3, 2008, DSS filed its next foster care service plan review with the J&DR 

court, along with a new foster care service plan, in which DSS proposed changing the program 

goal to adoption. In making this proposal, DSS outlined Williams’ and Joshua’s continuing 

“struggle[s]” and difficult[ies].” As to Williams, DSS reported that she was struggling with 

achieving significant gains from the support services that were being offered to her. According 

to DSS, “[s]he continues to report she is a good parent and blames [H.W.’s] removal on [DSS]. 

She has not reached the point of realizing she needs to strengthen her abilities. She continues to 

be more focused on her personal relationships and self-interest.” DSS further reported that, since 

the previous hearing, Williams was having difficulties with her personal relationships, i.e., her 

boyfriends, which involved domestic violence. DSS also reported that Williams was struggling 

with keeping a job, having left two jobs and started on a third one between November 2007 and 

January 2008, and that she was, in turn, struggling with budgeting her personal finances, despite 
- 7 -

the assistance she was receiving from DSS for housing, food, transportation, and electricity. As 

to housing, DSS reported that it had assisted her in obtaining government subsidized (“Section 

8”) housing in December, at a cost to her of sixty-eight dollars a month in rent, but she had not 

yet paid her rent for December, January or February. DSS concluded: “Due to the fact that this 

is the second permanency planning hearing and neither parent is ready to have the child placed 

with them, the goal of return home needs to be changed.” In other words, according to DSS, 

“[a]fter 14 months in foster care [H.W.] needs permanency and neither parent can offer that at 

this time.” Finally, DSS reported that H.W. had been moved in January 2008 to “a two-parent 

therapeutic foster home,” that these foster parents had agreed to adopt H.W. if all relative 

placements were exhausted, and that H.W. was “adjusting well” to this placement. 

The J&DR court rejected DSS’s proposal to change the program goal to adoption because 

Vernoy, H.W.’s paternal aunt, filed a petition for custody of H.W. and established that her work 

schedule no longer conflicted with her ability to care for H.W. H.W. was placed with Vernoy 

on April 20, 2008. But as DSS reported in its foster care service plan review filed with the 

J&DR court on May 23, 2008, H.W.’s behavior soon deteriorated while in Vernoy’s custody and 

the placement ended on May 13, 2008 at Vernoy’s request. H.W. was then returned to her 

previous therapeutic foster care parents, who still wished to adopt her. 

When filing the foster care service plan review on May 23, 2008, DSS also filed a new 

foster care service plan, in which DSS again proposed changing the program goal to adoption. 

As to why adoption was in H.W.’s best interest, DSS reported that, by the time of this review, 

H.W. had been in foster care for 17 months, that she “needs permanency,” and that “neither 

parent is in a position to have the child placed in their home.” In regards to Williams, DSS 

reported that she was still having the same kinds of “struggle[s]” as before in terms of her 

utilization of DSS’s support services to improve her parental status. The list of support services 
- 8 -

offered to Williams since December 2006, as documented in this latest DSS foster care service 

plan review, included: a psychological evaluation; anger management classes through the Center 

for Independent Living; individual counseling through Johnson Health Center; couples 

counseling at Couples and Kids; home based services through Anderson Mediation Services and 

Comprehensive Family Services; family counseling provided by Comprehensive Family 

Services; instruction on parenting skills and budgeting skills; assistance with housing; 

coordination of weekly visitation; Medicaid; coordination of medical and dental needs; and 

assistance with electric bills and transportation. 

At the June 10, 2008 hearing on these latest DSS filings, the J&DR court approved DSS’s 

proposed new foster care service plan and changed the goal for H.W. to adoption. 

DSS then filed a petition in the J&DR court to terminate Williams’ and Joshua’s residual 

parental rights to H.W. in order to proceed with the goal of adoption. After a number of delays 

in scheduling the termination hearing, on August 4, 2009, the J&DR court heard the case and 

entered an order terminating the parental rights of both parents. Williams, along with Joshua, 

appealed the J&DR court’s decision to the circuit court. 

The circuit court heard evidence on DSS’s termination petition on November 23, 2009, 

January 19, 2010, and February 8, 2010. DSS presented evidence of the above-described 

history, beginning with the events leading to its decision to remove H.W. from her parents to its 

decision to change H.W.’s foster care service plan goal from “return to own home” to adoption, 

and to then seek parental termination. As to Williams, DSS further detailed her conduct over the 

course of the previous three years evidencing her lack of significant improvement in the areas of 

parenting and budgeting skills, mental health, and personal relationships, relative to recurring 

incidents of domestic violence, despite the numerous support services she received from DSS 

and other government agencies. Regarding Williams’ ongoing mental health issues, DSS 
- 9 -

established, among other things, that Williams slit her wrist, assaulted two of her boyfriends, 

threatened to harm Joshua and his girlfriend, Priscilla G., threatened to kill DSS workers, and 

threatened to kill herself. In addition, DSS presented evidence detailing H.W.’s progress while 

in foster care. The circuit court also heard Williams’ testimony in opposition to DSS’s petition. 

The circuit court found that DSS established the grounds for terminating Williams’ 

parental rights to H.W. by clear and convincing evidence, pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B) and 

16.1-283(C)(2), and entered a final order to that effect on March 2, 2010. 

Williams’ appeal to this Court followed.1

 

II. ANALYSIS 

A. Admissibility of DSS’s Exhibits 11 and 12

Williams argues the circuit court erred in admitting into evidence two internet generated 

documents, DSS’s exhibits 11 and 12, over her objection to their admission on the ground that 

the documents were not properly authenticated. The documents, according to DSS’s witness, 

Judi Lariviere, were copies of two postings by Williams on her “MySpace” page indicating some 

relationship between her and “Mikey” in June 2008. Williams contends the documents were 

inadmissible because Lariviere could not establish that Williams actually authored the postings. 

Williams further contends that, without admission of those documents, the circuit court’s 

termination decision “quite possibly [could] have been different,” rendering their admission 

reversible error. Assuming without deciding that the circuit court erred in admitting the two 

documents, we conclude that any such error was harmless. 

 As dictated by statute in Virginia, non-constitutional error is harmless “[w]hen it plainly 

appears from the record and the evidence given at the trial that the parties have had a fair trial on 

 1

 The circuit court also terminated Joshua’s parental rights to H.W., which decision 

Joshua has challenged in a separate appeal to this Court. 
- 10 -

the merits and substantial justice has been reached.” Code § 8.01-678. Thus, as we recently 

reiterated: 

“If, when all is said and done, [it is clear] that the error did not 

influence the [fact finder], or had but slight effect, . . . the 

judgment should stand . . . . But if one cannot say, with fair 

assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the 

erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not 

substantially swayed by the error, it is impossible to conclude that 

substantial rights were not affected . . . . If so, or if one is left in 

grave doubt, the [judgment] cannot stand.” 

Andrews v. Creacey, 56 Va. App. 606, 625, 696 S.E.2d 218, 227 (2010) (quoting Clay v. 

Commonwealth, 262 Va. 253, 260, 546 S.E.2d 728, 731-32 (2001)); see also Schwartz v. 

Schwartz, 46 Va. App. 145, 159, 616 S.E.2d 59, 66 (2005). 

Here, the fact that Williams was having a relationship with “Mikey” during the period of 

time at issue, as indicated in the documents identified as DSS’s exhibits 11 and 12, is undisputed. 

Williams admitted to Lariviere that “Mikey” was one of her boyfriends at that time. The 

information in those documents was merely cumulative evidence of that fact. Thus, in light of 

the cumulative nature of those documents, as well as the evidence in the record supporting the 

circuit court’s termination decision, as addressed below, it is clear that those documents had no 

more than “‘slight effect,’” if any, on the court in rendering its decision. Andrews, 56 Va. App. 

at 625, 696 S.E.2d at 227 (quoting Clay, 262 Va. at 260, 546 S.E.2d at 731). 

B. Evidentiary Sufficiency

Williams challenges the evidentiary sufficiency of the circuit court’s decision to 

terminate her parental rights to H.W. under both Code § 16.1-283(B) and Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). 

Because we conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the circuit court’s termination 

decision under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), we need not address Williams’ argument regarding 

whether the court erred in its alternative ruling to terminate under subsection B of the statute. 

See Fields v. Dinwiddie County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 7, 614 S.E.2d 656, 659 
- 11 -

(2005) (termination of parental rights upheld under one subsection of Code § 16.1-283 negates 

need to consider termination under alternative subsection). 

Upon our review of a decision to terminate parental rights, we presume the circuit court 

“‘thoroughly weighed all the evidence, considered the statutory requirements, and made its 

determination based on the child’s best interests.’” Toms, 46 Va. App. at 265-66, 616 S.E.2d at 

769 (quoting Fields, 46 Va. App. at 7, 614 S.E.2d at 659). “‘The trial court’s judgment, when 

based on evidence heard ore tenus, will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or 

without evidence to support it.’” Id. at 266, 616 S.E.2d at 769 (quoting Fields, 46 Va. App. at 7, 

614 S.E.2d at 659 (other citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). “In its capacity as 

factfinder, therefore, the circuit court retains ‘broad discretion in making the decisions necessary 

to guard and to foster a child’s best interests.’” Id. (quoting Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 

328, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990)). 

Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) provides for the termination of parental rights if the trial court 

finds, based upon clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interests of the child, and 

that 

[t]he parent or parents, without good cause, have been unwilling or 

unable within a reasonable period of time not to exceed twelve 

months from the date the child was placed in foster care to remedy 

substantially the conditions which led to or required continuation 

of the child’s foster care placement, notwithstanding the 

reasonable and appropriate efforts of social, medical, mental health 

or other rehabilitative agencies to such end. 

Decisions to terminate parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C) 

hinge not so much on the magnitude of the problem that created 

the original danger to the child, but on the demonstrated failure of 

the parent to make reasonable changes. Considerably more 

“retrospective in nature [than subsection B of the statute],” 

subsection C requires the court to determine whether the parent has 

been unwilling or unable to remedy the problems during the period 

in which he has been offered rehabilitation services. 
- 12 -

Toms, 46 Va. App. at 271, 616 S.E.2d at 772 (quoting City of Newport News Dep’t of Soc. 

Servs. v. Winslow, 40 Va. App. 556, 562-63, 580 S.E.2d 463, 466 (2003)). 

 Pointing to the twelve-month time limit set forth in subsection (C)(2) of the statute, 

Williams argues there was insufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s parental 

termination decision because: (i) the court was required to look “only at [this] one-year period” 

in assessing the evidence and making its decision; (ii) she substantially satisfied the requirements 

of the foster care service plan within the one-year period immediately following H.W.’s removal; 

(iii) the fact that DSS did not seek to terminate her parental rights “at the one-year mark,” but 

instead continued to provide support services to her, should be viewed “as a tacit admission that 

[she] substantially complied during the relevant time period”; and DSS did not otherwise prove 

that termination of her parental rights was in H.W.’s best interests, as required under subsection 

(C)(2). Williams’ arguments are without merit. 

 The twelve-month time limit in subsection (C)(2) was “‘designed to prevent an 

indeterminate state of foster care “drift” and to encourage timeliness by the courts and social 

services in addressing the circumstances that resulted in [or required the continuation of] the 

foster care placement.’” Akers v. Fauquier County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 44 Va. App. 247, 256, 

604 S.E.2d 737, 741 (2004) (quoting L.G. v. Amherst County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 41 Va. App. 

51, 56, 581 S.E.2d 886, 889 (2003)). Thus, if the various service providers have made 

reasonable efforts to assist the parent in substantially remedying those circumstances and the 

parent has failed to do so within twelve months, “‘the court may act [at that time] to prevent the 

child from lingering in foster care’” according to what is in the child’s best interests. Id.

(quoting L.G., 41 Va. App. at 57, 581 S.E.2d at 889); see Kaywood v. Halifax County Dep’t of 

Social Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1990) (“It is clearly not in the best 
- 13 -

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 resuming his responsibilities.”).

This does not mean, however, that the court is prevented from considering evidence 

regarding the progress, or lack thereof, of the parent or the child beyond the twelve-month period 

set forth in subsection (C)(2). As we held in L.G., this twelve-month period must be considered 

in conjunction with the statutory requirement that termination is in the best interests of the child. 

L.G., 41 Va. App. at 56-59, 581 S.E.2d at 889-90. The best-interests-of-the-child inquiry 

dictates that the time limit in subsection (C)(2) cannot “temporally restrict” the trial court’s 

consideration of what occurred with the parent and child “only during that discrete twelve-month 

time period to the exclusion of what may have occurred before and after those dates.” Id. at 57, 

581 S.E.2d at 889. “Such a construction of the statute ‘would deny the fact finder the 

opportunity to evaluate the present best interests of the child.’” Id. (quoting Roanoke City Dep’t 

of Soc. Servs. v. Heide, 35 Va. App. 328, 337, 544 S.E.2d 890, 894 (2001) (emphasis in L.G.). 

Therefore, in L.G., we reversed the trial court in terminating the mother’s parental rights because 

the trial court refused to consider evidence that the mother had, in fact, made substantial progress 

in addressing problems leading to her child’s placement in foster care after expiration of the 

twelve-month time period under subsection (C)(2). Id. at 57-59, 581 S.E.2d at 890. See Peter N. 

Swisher, Lawrence D. Diehl, and James R. Cottrell, Family Law: Theory, Practice, and Forms

§ 14:3, at 962 n.26 (2009) (analyzing L.G.). 

In this case, the circuit court was thus entitled under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) to consider 

DSS’s evidence indicating that Williams’ problems leading to H.W.’s placement in foster care 

extended well beyond December 2007 (the end of the initial twelve-month period), that those 

problems required continuation of H.W.’s foster care placement, and that Williams, without good 

cause, was unwilling or unable to substantially remedy those problems either before or after 
- 14 -

December 2007. Likewise, the circuit court was entitled to consider DSS’s evidence concerning 

H.W.’s progress throughout the child’s placement in foster care. 

Based on DSS’s evidence, there was ample support for the circuit court’s decision to 

terminate Williams’ residual parental rights, pursuant to subsection (C)(2) of the statute. As 

discussed above, DSS’s evidence showed that H.W. was removed from Williams and the child’s 

father due to DSS’s valid concerns over H.W.’s lack of proper parental supervision, the child’s 

exposure to domestic violence, and Williams’ mental health issues. Then following H.W.’s 

removal, DSS and other governmental agencies made reasonable and appropriate efforts to assist 

Williams with what DSS confirmed or otherwise discovered to be Williams’ lack of parenting 

and budgeting skills, mental instability, including deficits with anger management, and personal 

relationships characterized by domestic violence. 

When Williams failed to substantially remedy those problems by the end of the initial 

twelve-month period, DSS sought, and the J&DR court granted to Williams, an extension of 

three months under the foster care service plan in order to give her an additional opportunity to 

address her problems; during that time she continued to receive assistance from the various 

agencies. Despite the additional time and assistance, however, Williams, without good cause, 

still failed to substantially remedy the problems. Nor did she, in fact, do so over the course of 

the next year and a half. 

As DSS showed, Williams’ problems only worsened during the time leading up to the 

termination hearing in circuit court in late 2009 and early 2010. DSS’s evidence indicated that 

Williams had not progressed in her parenting and budgeting skills. In fact, Williams represented 

that she needed no assistance with parenting skills, as she considered herself an excellent parent. 

When with H.W. during weekly visits, Williams was often focused on her own needs, and had 

minimal interaction with her daughter. DSS further showed that, due to a lack of budgeting, 
- 15 -

Williams often failed to have funds for her basic household expenses, and was evicted from two 

different homes during the time in question for failure to pay her rent. Sometimes she did not 

even have food in her home for her daughter during visitation. DSS also presented evidence 

indicating that Williams continued to struggle with her mental health issues, including slitting 

her wrist, twice overdosing on prescription medication, attacking and threatening to attack 

others, and threatening to kill herself and others. She was diagnosed as suffering from anxiety, 

depression, and bipolar disorder, and was sporadic in attending mental health counseling made 

available to her. DSS further showed that Williams continued to be in and out of personal 

relationships characterized by repeated incidents of serious domestic violence. The evidence 

indicated that she was both the victim of such violence at the hands of her boyfriends and that 

she was at times inflicting physical violence upon them. Williams was incarcerated and awaiting 

trial for one such incident at the time of the termination hearing in circuit court. 

The trial court heard Williams’ testimony in conflict with DSS’s witnesses and resolved 

the conflict in favor of DSS. “It is well established that the trier of fact ascertains the witness’ 

credibility, determines the weight to be given to their testimony, and has the discretion to accept 

or reject any of the witness’ testimony.” Street v. Street, 25 Va. App. 380, 387, 488 S.E.2d 665, 

668 (1997) (en banc) (citing Bridgeman v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 523, 528, 351 S.E.2d 

598, 601 (1986)). 

In light of this record, covering over three years of evidence, we cannot say the circuit 

court’s decision to terminate Williams’ residual parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) was 

plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. 
- 16 -

III. CONCLUSION 

 Concluding that the challenged evidentiary ruling was not reversible error and that 

sufficient evidence supports the circuit court’s factual findings, we affirm the circuit court’s 

decision to terminate Williams’ residual parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). 

 Affirmed.