COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Petty, AtLe e and Senior Judge Clements

CHASTITY DAVIS MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1797-14-1 PER CURIAM AUGUST 4, 2015 ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY Robert H. Sandwich, Jr., Judge (Robert W. Jones, Jr.; Jones & Jone s, P.C., on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. (Mark C. Popovich, County Attorney; Del Br own, Guardian ad litem for the minor children; The Brown La w Firm, on brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on brief.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication. Chastity Davis (mother) appeals an order terminating her parental ri ghts to her four children. Mother argues that the circuit cour t erred by ruling that there was sufficient evidence to (1) approve the foster care goal of adoption because it was not in the children’s best interests and mother had made “significant progress towards reunification with her children;” and (2) terminate her parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) because mother had made “significant progress towards the requirements set forth in the children’s foster care plan.” Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that th e circuit court did not err. Accord ingly, we affirm the decision of the circuit court.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - BACKGROUND We view the evidence in the light most favor able to the prevailing party below and grant to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Logan v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991). In May 2012, mother had three minor children, who were eight, five, and on e years old. Mother lived with St even Hercher, who was the father of tw o of the children. The Isle of Wight County Department of Social Services (the Department) had be en working with the family for years. It provided in-home counseling, referrals for substance abuse serv ices, and referrals for mental health serv ices. From 2008 until 2012, the childre n had been referred to Child Protective Services nine times because of alleged abuse from the parents. The police had responded to mother’s home on severa l occasions to investigat e allegations of child ne glect, assault, use of a weapon, and domestic violence. On May 23, 2012, the Department received a call regarding lacerations on mother’s middle child. The child reported that her father, Hercher, cut her with a knife on her u pper thigh. The Department removed the three children from the home and pla ced them in foster care. On July 10, 2012, the Isle of Wight County Juveni le and Domestic Relations District Court (the JDR court) adjudicated the ch ildren as abused and neglected. The Department recommended that mother co mplete a parental ca pacity evaluation and parenting classes. Mother completed the evaluati on and a class. The Department also referred mother to counseling and substance abuse treatment . Mother enrolled in outpatient substance abuse counseling and worked with an in-home substa nce abuse counselor, who conducted random drug and alcohol screens. Mother had negative drug screens. In January 2013, mother gave bi rth to her fourth child, who is also subject to this appeal. Hercher is the biological father. In March 20 13, mother was incarcerated for assault of a law- 3 - enforcement officer. Mother sign ed a notarized statement entrustin g the child’s care to Heather Knoll. The child lived in a house with Knoll, Michael Hendrix and, reportedly, He rcher. On May 10, 2013, the Department learned that Hercher was arrested on May 9, 2013 for kidnapping, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and unlawful wounding. 1 Hercher was intoxicated at the time of his arrest, and the chil d was present in the home during the domestic altercation. On May 10, mother agreed to place her youn gest child in respite car e with a certified fost er parent since both parents were incarcerated. On May 21, 2013, the JDR court entered an emergency removal order. On August 19, 20 13, mother was released from incarcer ation. On August 21, 2013, mother admitted in a family partnership me eting that she needed “to work on herself be fore she is prepared to take custody of her children.” She was uncertain ab out her ability to meet the children’s needs. In April 2014, mother and Hercher were livi ng together. Since Hercher did not complete any recommended services, the De partment had concerns about hi m having access to the children. On April 1, 2014, the Department filed pe titions to terminate mother’s parental rights to her four children. On May 27, 2014, the JDR court te rminated mother’s parent al rights to the four children. She appealed to the circuit court. On July 22, 2014, the circ uit court heard evid ence and argument. The Department presented evidence that th ere were additional paren ting classes that mother still needed to complete. In addition, the Department rema ined concerned about Hercher, an d since mother wa s living with him, she was not in a po sition to have custody of the children. Mother acknowled ged that she had not met all of the Department’s requirements, but she testified that she had been wo rking on them, even while she was incarcerated. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court determined that “while [mother] made efforts to remedy the circumst ances which brought her children into care . . . ,

1 Hercher was found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and unlawful wounding. The kidnapping charge was nolle prosequied

.- 4 - she had not made significant strides . . . to subs tantially remedy the conditions which brought them into foster care . . . .” The circuit court terminated mother’s parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) and approv ed the goals of adoption. 2 This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS Mother argues that the circuit court erred in co ncluding that the evidence was sufficient to terminate her parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) and approve the permanency planning goals of adoption. She contends she had made signifi cant progress towa rd meeting the Department’s requirements. “Where, as here, the court hears the evidence ore tenus , its finding is en titled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unle ss plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Martin v. Pittsylvania Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20, 348 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1986) (citations omitted). When considering te rmination of parental rights, “the paramount consideration of a trial court is the child’s best interest s.” Logan, 13 Va. App. at 128, 409 S.E.2d
at 463. The circuit court terminated mother’s parent al rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), which states that a court may terminate parental rights if: The 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 wa s placed in foster care to remedy substantially the conditio ns 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.

2 This Court remanded the matter to the ci rcuit court on May 11, 2015 for it to make a factual finding of whether the termination was in the children’s best inte rests. On June 10, 2015, the circuit court entered an order stating that the termination of mother’s parental rights was in the children’s be st interests.- 5 - Mother contends that despite being incarcerat ed for approximately si x months, she complied with many of the Department’s requirements. She attended meetings as requested. She was cooperative with the Department and showed co ncern about the children . She completed the parenting capacity evaluation and a parenting class. Mother ar gues that she made substantial progress in meeting the Department’s goals. However, the Department want ed mother to complete additi onal parenting classes. In addition, mother was residing with Hercher, who had not completed the Department’s requirements. He previously told the Department that he di d not need substance abuse services, counseling services, or psychosexual evaluation , even though th ey were recommended in his parenting capacity evaluation. Prior to mother’s incar ceration and shortly after her release, she expressed uncertainty about whether she could meet the children ’s needs. The two oldest child ren have behavioral issues and require therapy. One of the children has severe emotional and behavioral issues. She exhibits impulsivity and hyperactivity, has oppositional de fiant behavior, and can become verbally and physically aggressive. In Septembe r 2013, she required hospitalizatio n due to her beha vior. After her hospitalization, she has sh own signs of improvement, but requires numerous services and constant supervision. The other ch ildren were doing well in foster care. At the time of the circuit court hearing, the th ree oldest children had b een in foster care for more than two years, while the youngest child had been in foster care for more than one year. “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 resu ming his [or her] responsi bilities.” Kaywood v. Halifax Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs ., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1990).- 6 - Although mother met some of the Department’s goals, she did not substantially remedy the situation that led to the children being placed, and remaining, in fo ster care. The circuit court did not err in terminating her parental righ ts and approving the goals of adoption.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s ruling is affirmed. Affirmed.