COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton

SHERRI EUBANK MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1357-04-2 PER CURIAM FEBRUARY 15, 2005 CHESTERFIELD-COL ONIAL HEIGHTS DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Frederick G. Rock well, III, Judge (Matthew J. Zwerdling; Zwerd ling and Oppleman, on brief), for appellant. (Michael Chernau, Senior Assist ant County Attorney, on brief), for appellee. (Scott D. Landry; Duty, Duty & Landry, on brief), Guardian ad litem for the minor children.
Sherri Eubank appeals the tria l court’s decision terminating her parental rights to her two daughters. Eubank contends th e evidence was insufficient to support the termination, and specifically argues on brief that the evidence was insufficient to prove that her hu sband sexually abused her younger daughter and that she was not given the chance to correct or eliminate the abuse allegation. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclu de that Eubank did not preserve these issues for appeal. Accordingly, we summaril y affirm the decision of the trial court.
See Rule 5A:27. Eubank’s counsel endorsed the final terminatio n order, “Seen and objected to.” However, the written statement of facts filed in lieu of a transcript did not recite any arguments presented by

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - Eubank or any objections she made to the trial court’s rulings. Rule 5A:18 provides that “[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless the objection was stated together with the grounds therefor at the time of the ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice.” This rule allows the trial court to cure any error called to its attention, thereby avoidi ng unnecessary appeals and retrials. See Herring v. Herring , 33 Va. App. 281, 286, 532 S. E.2d 923, 927 (2000). “Ordin arily, endorsement of an order ‘Seen and objected to ’ is not specific enough to meet the re quirements of Rule 5A:18 because it does not sufficiently aler t the trial court to th e claimed error.” Id. Such an endorsement satisfies Rule 5A:18 only if the trial court’ s ruling was so narrow that the basis of appellant’s objection is obvious. Id. According to Rule 5A:8(c), the written statement of facts mu st include “fac ts, testimony, and other incidents of the case.” Here, the wr itten statement does not me ntion or describe any motions to strike, closing argume nts, motions to set aside, or motions to reco nsider, or any objections or exceptions ma de to the trial court’s ruling. The signed endorse ment of the final order of termination indicates th at Eubank saw and object ed to the trial court’s ruling, but does not set forth specifically the conteste d issues. The record before us fails to set forth the issues , if any, raised below. Furthermore, the tria l court’s ruling was not narrow enough to make obvious the basis of Eubank’s objection. The tria l court terminated Eubank’s parental rights because: [B]ased on clear and convincing evid ence, that adoption is in the best interests of both children; th at the neglect or abuse suffered by the children presented a serious and substantial threat to their life, health or development; and that it is not reasonably likely that the conditions which resulted in such neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected or eliminated so as to allow the children’s safe return to Richard or Sherri Eubank within a reasonable period of time. The Court further finds that Richard and Sherri Eubank, without good cause, have been unwilling or unable within a reasonable period of time from the date the children were placed in- 3 - foster care to remedy substantiall y the conditions which led to or required continuation of the children’s foster care placement, notwithstanding the reasonable and appropriate efforts of social, medical, mental health and rehabi litative agencies to such end. The court’s decision implicates factors such as the burden of proof, th e reasonableness of the time period for remedying the problems, the defini tion of “remedy substantially the conditions” leading to foster care, and whether it was in the child’s best interest s to terminate parental rights. We cannot be certain of the basis of Eubank’s obj ection to this ruling or even if Eubanks make objection at trial to the court’s ruling. Moreover, we have examined the issues ra ised herein and find that neither “good cause” nor “the ends of justice” require consideration of the issues. See Rule 5A:18. Because the issues raised before this Court are procedurally defaul ted under Rule 5A:18, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Affirmed.