COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Humphreys, O’ Brien and Senior Judge Bumgardner

KATHY F. HARWOOD v. Record No. 0414-15-2
BUCKINGHAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM KATHY F. HARWOOD DECEMBER 15, 2015 v. Record No. 0852-15-2
BUCKINGHAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF BUCKINGHAM COUNTY Kimberley S. White, Judge (Roger B. Stough, on brief), for appellant. (E. M. Wright, Jr.; Er ic A. Tinnell, Guardian ad litem for the minor child, on brief), for appellee.
Kathy F. Harwood (mot her) appeals two orders regarding foster care for her child. Mother presents the following assignments of error: 1 1. The trial court erred in appr oving the dispositi onal order that did not provide for reasonable accommodations for the appellant’s disabilities in violation of the Am ericans with Disabilities Act.

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

1 Mother’s opening brief also includes three questions presented. Effective July 1, 2010, Rule 5A:20(c) was revised to stat e that an appellant’s opening brief shall cont ain a “statement of the assignments of error with a cl ear and exact reference to the pa ge(s) of the transcript, written statement, record, or appendix where each assignment of error was preserved in the trial court.” Pursuant to the revised rules, this Court consid ers only assignments of error and, as such, will not consider the additional issues li sted as questions presented.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - 2. The trial court erred in appr oving the dispositi onal order that did not provide services designed to address the reasons that the child came into foster care. 3. The trial court erred in approvi ng the foster care plan with the goal of adoption without providing se rvices to the appellant first. 4. The trial court erred in denying the foster care plan with the goal of return home. 5. The trial court erred in finding that the appellant was responsible for locating her own services. 6. The trial court erred in approvi ng the foster care plan that did not provide for reasonable accomm odations for the appellant’s disabilities in violation of the Am ericans with Disabilities Act. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that these appeals are without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
BACKGROUND Mother has one child who was born in September 1998. On October 10, 2013, the Department received a child protective services complaint. There was concern about the child’s health because he was severely underweight, had stunted growth, and had rotten teeth. Mother was reluctant to provide information to the social worker, but did state th at the child was highly allergic to many foods. Mother al so indicated that she and the ch ild have chemical sensitivities, so she limits people’s access to their home and rarely goes to public places, including doctor’s offices. After investigating the child protective se rvices complaint, the Department obtained a preliminary protective order. Mother was ordere d to provide the Department with the child’s medical information and have the child evaluated. Mother did not comply until the juvenile and domestic relations district court (JDR court) ordered her to take the child to the Medical College- 3 - of Virginia (MCV) to be evaluated by Dr. Foster. The JDR court also ordered that a representative from the Department was to accompany mother and the child at MCV. On October 25, 2013, mother took the child to MCV, where he was evaluated. The child had to be admitted because he had low albumin le vels and low thyroid levels. He was severely malnourished and had severe hypothyroidism. Th e medical staff indicated that the child’s conditions were indicative of neglect by mother. Mother objected to the child being admitted at that time. She was vague and defensive in her responses to the medical staff. In order to avoid interferen ce from mother regarding the child’s necessary treatment, the medical staff requested that th e Department obtain custody of the child, which it did. On October 29, 2013, the JDR court entered an emerge ncy removal order. After a hearing in November 2013, the JDR court entered an adjudi catory order for abuse and neglect. On February 24, 2014, the JDR court entered a dispositional order on the underlying foster care matter. Mother appealed to the circuit court. Meanwhile, the JDR court entere d an order approving a foster care review plan. Mother appealed this order to the circuit co urt. The appeals were consolidated. On January 30 and 31, 2015, the circuit co urt heard evidence and argument. The Department presented evidence that the child weighed eighteen pounds and six ounces when he was two and one-half years old. The following year, he weighed twenty pounds and six and one-half ounces. He weighed tw enty-five pounds when he was ei ght years old. When he was admitted to MCV in October 2013, he was fi fteen years old and weighed thirty pounds. Evidence was presented that mother submitted to a psychological examination and a parental capacity assessment, c onducted by Dr. A. J. Anderson. Dr. Anderson stated that “the testing indicates depression, a de gree of preoccupation with physic al health and bodily functions, and impaired contact with reality, all of which ar e likely to interfere with effective parenting.”- 4 - Dr. Anderson concluded, “It does no t appear likely that any kind or amount of services is likely to improve substantially Ms. Harwood’s level of functioning or her ability to parent.” Despite court orders and requirements in th e Department’s service plan, mother did not submit to a medical evaluation. Mother also did not participate in nutrition education training/classes which were deemed appropriate for her child’s needs, nor did she submit to an attachment evaluation. The Department also presented evidence that the child was improving in foster care. The doctors could not identify any food allergies or chemical sensitivities from which the child suffered. While living with his mother, the child at e baby food that his mother spoon-fed to him. Once in foster care, he attended therapy and learne d to feed himself foods with thicker textures. He gained weight and grew several inches. He started to attend school an d interact with other people. At the conclusion of the January 31, 2015 hearin g, the circuit court approved the original foster care plan, dated January 24, 2014, that wa s approved by the JDR dispositional order, but disapproved the subsequent foster care plan dated July 11, 2014. Th e circuit court explained that the January 24, 2014 foster care plan had a goal of return home, which was reasonable at the time. The July 11, 2014 foster care plan also had a goal of return home, but mother still had not complied with the Department’s requirements. Th e circuit court found that the goal of return home was no longer reasonable, so the circuit court ordered the Depa rtment to file a new plan. The circuit court entered orders reflecting its rulings on February 10, 2015. Mother appealed the dispositional order to this Court. On March 25 and April 29, 2015, the circuit court heard additional evidence regarding the new foster care review plan submitted by the Department. The foster care review plan had a- 5 - goal of adoption. The circuit court approved the new plan and entered an order on May 28, 2015. Mother appealed the approval of th e foster care plan to this Court.
ANALYSIS I. February 10, 2015 order A. Assignment of error #1 Mother argues that the “trial court erred in approving the dispositional order that did not provide for reasonable accommodations for [her] di sabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.” Mother cont ends that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), she is an individual with a disability, and the De partment was required to make reasonable accommodations to her. Mother’s objection to the February 10, 2015 order simply stated, “Finding that the petitioners offered services to the respondent in such a manne r to accommodate her various disabilities.” At trial, she did not argue th at the ADA applied and wa s violated, nor did she specify what accommodations should have been granted that were not made for her. 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 ). Since mother is raising new arguments on appe al for the first time, this Court will not consider the first assignment of error. B. Assignment of error #2 Mother argues that the “trial court erred in approving the dispositional order that did not provide services designed to a ddress the reasons that the child came into foster care.”- 6 - Specifically, she contends the Department did not offer her any services to address the child’s dental issues. Mother did not note this objection on the tr ial court’s February 10, 2015 order; therefore, this Court will not consider it. See Rule 5A :18; Ohree, 26 Va. App. at 308, 494 S.E.2d at 488. C. Assignment of error #4 Mother argues that the trial court erred in denying the July 11, 2014 foster care plan with the goal of return home. She does not address this assignment of error in her opening brief; therefore, it is waived and will not be cons idered. See Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 451, 478, 619 S.E.2d 16, 31 (2005) (“Failure to adequa tely brief an assignment of error is considered a waiver.” (citation omitted)). II. May 28, 2015 order – Assignm ents of error # 3, 5, and 6 Mother argues that the trial court erred in approving the foster care plan with the goal of adoption. We have many times pointed out that on appeal the judgment of the lower court is presumed to be correct and the burden is on the appellant to present to us a suffi cient record from which we can determine whether the lower court has erred in the respect complained of. If the appellant fails to do this, the judgment will be affirmed. Smith v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 630, 635, 432 S.E.2d 2, 6 (1993) (quoting Justis v. Young, 202 Va. 631, 632, 119 S.E.2d 255, 256-57 (1961)). “When the appellant fails to ensure that th e record contains transcripts or a written statement of facts necessary to permit resolution of appellate issues, any assignments of error affected by such omission shall not be considered.” Rule 5A:8(b)(4)(ii). The May 28, 2015 order states that the trial co urt’s decision is based on the hearings of March 25 and April 29, 2015, as well as the tran scripts for the hearings on January 30 and 31,- 7 - 2015. The record on appeal does not contain a tran script or a timely filed written statement of facts from the March 25, 2015 hearin g. See Rule 5A:8(a) and (c). We have reviewed the record and the opening brief. We conclude that a transcript or written statement of facts for th e March 25, 2015 hearing is indisp ensable to a determination of the third, fifth, and sixth assignments of erro r. See Anderson v. Co mmonwealth, 13 Va. App. 506, 508-09, 413 S.E.2d 75, 76-77 (1992); Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 99-100, 341 S.E.2d 400, 402 (1986). In addition, the appendix does not include a co py of the foster care plan that the trial court approved and which is the subject of this appeal. The appendix must include “any testimony and other incidents of the case germane to the questions presented,” Rule 5A:25(c)(3), and “exhibits necessary for an understanding of the case that can reasonably be reproduced,” Rule 5A:25(c)(6). “The appendix is a tool vital to the functi on of the appellate proce ss in Virginia. . . . By requiring the inclusion of all parts of the record germane to the issues, the Rules promote the cause of plenary justice.” Thrasher v. Burlage, 219 Va. 1007, 1009-10, 254 S.E.2d 64, 66 (1979) (per curiam). Thus, the filing of an appendix that complies with the Rules, is “essential to an in formed collegiate decision.” Id. Patterson v. City of Richmond, 39 Va. App. 706, 717, 576 S.E.2d 759, 764-65 (2003). Mother had the responsibility to provide a complete record to the appellate court. Twardy v. Twardy, 14 Va. App. 651, 658, 419 S.E.2d 848, 852 (1992) ( en banc ). This Court “will not search the record for errors in order to interpret the appellant’s contention and correct deficiencies in a brief.” Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). Nor is it this Court’s “function to comb th rough the record . . . in order to ferret-out for ourselves the validity of [appe llant’s] claims.” Fitzgerald v. Bass, 6 Va. App. 38, 56 n.7, 366 S.E.2d 615, 625 n.7 (1988) ( en banc ). Mother failed to provide us with an adequa te appendix to enable us to address the third, fifth, and sixth assignments of error. Because th e appendix filed in this case does not contain a- 8 - part of the record that is essential to the reso lution of the issues before us, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ru ling is summarily affirmed. Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.