COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Decker, Malveau x and Senior Judge Annunziata

AMBROSIA de JESUS M ARTINEZ, S/K/A AMBROSIA MARTINEZ de JESUS v. Record No. 0090-18-3
HARRISONBURG ROCKINGHAM SOCIAL SERVI CES DISTRICT PASCUAL MARTINEZ FLORES, S/K/A PASCUAL MARTINEZ-FLORES v. Record No. 0097-18-3
HARRISONBURG ROCKINGHAM SOCIAL SERVI CES DISTRICT PASCUAL MARTINEZ FLORES, S/K/A PASCUAL MARTINEZ-FLORES MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0578-18-3 PER CURIAM OCTOBER 16, 2018 HARRISONBURG ROCKINGHAM SOCIAL SERVI CES DISTRICT PASCUAL MARTINEZ FLORES, S/K/A PASCUAL MARTINEZ-FLORES v. Record No. 0579-18-3
HARRISONBURG ROCKINGHAM SOCIAL SERVI CES DISTRICT PASCUAL MARTINEZ FLORES, S/K/A PASCUAL MARTINEZ-FLORES v. Record No. 0580-18-3
HARRISONBURG ROCKINGHAM SOCIAL SERVI CES DISTRICT

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this op inion is not designated fo r publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY Bruce D. Albertson, Judge (Tania L. Perez Rodriguez; John Elledge & Associates, on brie f), for appellant Ambrosia de Jesus Mar tinez, s/k/a Ambrosia Martinez d e Jesus. Appellant submitting on brief. (Roland M. L. Santos, on brief), f or appellant Pascual Martin ez Flores, s/k/a Pascual Martinez-Flores. Appellant submitting on brief. (Kim Van Horn Gutterman, Assistan t County Attorney; Sherwin John Jacobs, Guardian ad litem for the minor children, on briefs), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on briefs.

Ambrosia de Jesus Martinez, s/k/a Ambrosia Martinez de Jesus, (mother) and Pascual Martinez Flores, s/k/a Pascual Martinez-Flores, (father) are ap pealing the orders terminating their parental rights and appr oving the foster care goal of ado ption. Mother argues that the circuit court erred in finding t hat the Harris onburg RockinghamSocial Services District (the Department) “presented clear a nd convincing evidence that termi nating mother’s parental rights was appropriate and in [the child ren’s] best interest pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-283.” Father argues that the circuit court erred in finding that he “ did not remedy substantially the conditions which led to the re moval of the children under Va. C ode Ann. § 16.1-283(C) when the evidence revealed that [father and mother] completed most o f the tasks assigned to them pursuant to the foster care plan.” Upon reviewing the record a nd briefs of the parties, we conclude that the circuit court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the circuit court.
BACKGROUND “On appeal, ‘we view the evidenc e and all reason able inferences in the light most favorable to the prevailing part y below, in this case the Department.’” Farrell v. Warren Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 59 Va. App. 375, 386, 719 S.E.2d 329, 334 (2012) (quoting Jenkins v. Winchester Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 12 Va. App. 1178, 1180, 409 S. E.2d 16, 18 (1991)).- 3 - Mother and father are the biol ogical parents to E. and A., who are the subject of this appeal, as well as K. and C. 1 Mother and father are from Oaxaca, Mexico. Their primary lan guage is an indigenous dialect, Triqui; howe ver, they also can communicate in Spanish. From April 2010 until January 2016, the Department and neighbo ring Shenandoah County Department of Social Services (Sh enandoah County DSS) received a total of seventeen complaints regarding the paren ts and the children. 2 The complaints included a llegations of physical abuse, inadequate shelter, l ack of food, hygiene problems, lack of sup ervision, bizarre discipline, and medical neglect. The physical abuse and bizarre discipline com plaints concerned E. and involved incidents in which E. had bruise s, scratches, and a black eye. 3 One of the complaints, in June 2011, resulted in father pleading guilty to assault and battery again st E. Over the years, the Department had entered into safety plans with the family, and father had a greed not to use corporal punishment. The safety plans were written in “very simple Spanish,” so the parents could understand. The Department offered information to the family about the food pan try, English classe s, and the PEAS parenting class. The family received services for C., includin g a home health care nurse and a hospice nurse. However, the home health aide stopped coming to the house after father had locked her inside in January 2013, and the parents later stopped allow ing the hospice nurse into the house. The Shenandoah County DSS offere d services to E., such as couns eling, medicatio n management, case management, therapeutic day treatment, and mentoring. The parents declined parenting

1 K. is the oldest child and lives with her grandmother in Mexic o. C. was born with Niemann-Pick disease, Type C, a nd died, at the age of three, in2014.

2 In 2010, the family lived in Roc kingham County, and by the tim e of the February 9, 2012 complaint, they had moved to Shenandoah County. They move d back to Rockingham County sometime between December 16, 2013 and July 28, 2015, wh en the Department received the next complaint.

3 The hygiene and medical neglect complaints concerned C.- 4 - education classes, an d the Department was “unclear” as to what services the She nandoah County DSS offered to the parents to address the physical abuse issues

. On January 7, 2016, the Depart ment received the seventeenth co mplaint, which alleged that E. was being physical abused. E . reported that “a big fat guy recently moved in” and that E. had to sleep on the floor. E . stated that “he wa s sleeping and the bi g fat guy came and ripped the blanket off of him and hit him with a be lt on his legs and near his gro in area.” E. said that his mother became angry, told him to get in the shower, and hit him repeat edly with a shoe. Next, E. said that the “big fat guy turned the wat er all the way up and put him in the shower with his clothes on,” and mother was angry at E. for using all of the hot water. On Janu ary 14, 2016, E. ref used to speak with the social worker becau se he was worried that his parents would be angry if he talked with her. On February 17, 2016, the social wor ker met with mother and father , and father reported that A. was good and listened, un like E. Father reported that E. was “not right in the head,” and father did not know “what to do becau se he [could not] hit him [E.] anymore be cause the agency had indicated he could not.” On Februar y 18, 2016, father t old the principal at E.’s school that E. was a liar and not to call social services every tim e E. says something. On March 15, 2016, the Dep artment filed a petition for an emergen cy removal of E. and A. At the time of the removal, E. was ten years old, and A. was three years old. On March 15, 2016, the Harriso nburg Rockingham Juvenile and Do mestic Relations District Court (the JDR court) ent ered emergency removal orders for E. and A. The JDR court adjudicated that E. and A. were a bused or neglected and entered dispositional orders on August 10, 2016. The parties stipulated to the facts for the abuse and ne glect and how the children came into foster care. Initially, E. and A. were placed in the same foster home, but in order to better address his behavioral and emotional needs, the Department moved E. to Chil dhelp, a residen tial treatment- 5 - center, on April 19, 20 16. In February 2017, E. was discharged from Childhelp and placed in a different foster home. While the children were in foste r care, the Department require d mother and father to “accept their role in the removal of the children and acknowledge the n eed for increasing their parental capacity.” Mother and father als o had to maintain stable housi ng and employment . Mother and father needed to “demonstrate the ability to provide a home tha t is safe, stabl e, and free from physical abuse” and show that the y understood age-appropriate d isciplinary techniques. The Department offered weekly super vised visitation and referred mo ther and father to individual counseling, parenting cla sses, and a parent mentor. The parents attended the parenting classes, which were taught in Spanish. Father participated in individual counseling. His counselor reported that father asked questions and was engaged, but father did not belie ve that he needed therapy. Al though mother and father initially went to counseling, they stopped going in early 2 017. A Spanis h-speaking pare nt mentor was assigned to work with mother an d father from August 2016 throug h May 2017. The parents consistently met with t he parent mentor and discussed cultural differences and appropriate parenting in the United States versus Mexico. The parent mentor also acc ompanied them to their visits with A. and discussed appropriate behavior. Beginning with the removal an d continuing throughout the case, the parents denied abusing E. or A. and believed that the c hildren were removed because of E. and his behavi ors. Mother and father stated that E. lied about the abuse and that E. was a “b ad child.” The only time that mother and father admitted that one of them abused A. or E. was when f ather was arrested for assault and battery against E. Neither parent showed an understanding of mental illness. Fat her told the social worker that E. should not be taking any medicat ion, and father told E. to s top taking his medication because it- 6 - made him “more crazy.” Father also asked the social worker to give E. a blood test, so that they can determine how to “fix” his brain. Father told a Childhelp ther apist that E. needed “more intensive treatment or alteration to his brain.” Mother and father told E. that “the only thing [he] can do to improve himself is pray.” Mothe r and father denied that E.’s b ehavior could be related to abuse he sustained. On March 7, 2017, the Department filed pe titions to t erminate mother and father’s parental rights to E. and A. On April 19, 2017, the JDR court terminate d mother and father’s parental rights and approved the goals of adoption; mother and father appealed the JDR court’s rulings to the circuit court. On January 11, 2018, the partie s appeared before the circuit c ourt. At the be ginning of the trial, mother and father stated t hat they did not contest the f acts as to how the children came into foster care, and the Department stipulated that the parents com plied with the majority of the services. The Department explai ned that the main issue was whe ther mother and father learned from the services provided and a pplied that knowledge appropria tely. Mother and father argued that they did not understand everythin g that was asked of them becau se services were provided in Spanish, which was not t heir primary language. The Department proffered that E. has been in the same foster h ome since late February 2017, and it is a potential adop tive placement. The Department presented evidence that A. has been in the same foster home since he entered foster care in March 2 016. The foster father testified that initially both A. and E. were plac ed together in t he home. The foster father said that E. was “very difficult[,] . . . very angry, d efiant, moody, . . . [and] dang erous.” Due to concerns about their safety, the foster parents informed the Department that they we re not equipped to handle E. and his needs, so the Department remove d E. from thei r home. When A. f irst arrived, he did not speak English and used “foul language. ” Now, however, A. speaks and understands English. The foster- 7 - father testified that A. was thriving and was “kind of a regula r kid now.” The fost er father indicated that he and his wife w ould like to adopt A. Since A. entered foster care, he has seen a psychologist, Dr. Ronda Weber. Dr. Weber is fluent in Spanish, and initially, she tried to speak with A. in Spanish. However, A. was upset that she tried talking with him in Spa nish, so they spoke English. Dr. Weber testified that initially A. was “hyper vigilant at a level that would not be typical for a child his age.” Dr. Weber diagnosed A. with post-traumatic stress disord er. A. had a pr eoccupation wi th food and being fed, and he displayed fearfulness and had nightmares. Dr. Weber testified that in the past year and a half, A. has become “less hyper vigilant ” and is not as fearful, especia lly when he stopped visiting with mother and father. Dr. Weber com mented that A. did not want to see mother and father and did not express any loss or grief concerning them. Dr. Weber even note d that A. showed more bonding behavior with his foster mother a fter living with her for four months than he ever showed toward mother. Dr. Weber opined that co ntact between A. and mother an d father would cause A. to “regress in his improv ement” and “be very confused and feel mor e insecure about his current situation.” The social worker testified about some of the visits between m other, father, A., and E. On January 24, 2017, the parents w ere visiting with A. and playinga game. The social worker noticed that A. spoke with her and the parent mentor, but not mother an d father “until the la st minute.” The social worker stated that the pa rent mentor spoke in Spanish, b ut A. responded in English. In late February 2017, E. started visitin g with A., mother, and father at the Department’s office. A. and E. mainly spoke in English, but oc casionally spoke i n Spanish. Th e social worker testified about a visit on March 21, 201 7, when E. had to leave early, and A. the n stopped responding to mother and father. The social worker comme nted that A. acted differently during the visitations than at his- 8 - foster home because when A. was in the foster home, he talked n on-stop and was very playful and sociable. After the JDR court hearing on April 19, 2 017, the Department spoke with mother and father and instructed them not to speak with the children about the court matters. On May 23, 2017, mother and father visited with E. and A., and due to the parent s’ actions during the visit, this was the last visit between the parents and the children. The social wo rker testified that while mother, father, E., and A. were eating, mother to ld E. that “he wasn’t going to get to eat food like this anymore because he wasn’t Mexican anymore and he was American now.” Mo ther showed him a photograph of C. and to ld E. that “this was the baby who died a nd now it’s like yo u’re dying too.” Both mother and father told E. that “they were suffering becaus e of [E.].” E. cried. The social worker asked mother and father t o “stop talking about that” and to enjoy the time that they had with the children. Father started to argue with the social worker, and mother continued t o tell E. that he was going to “have another mom and said that she was going to h ave to sell all of his things.” The social worker again as ked them to stop, and father told her that they could say whatever they wanted to their children. The social worker asked both parents to lea ve the visitation room, and reminded them that they were not to discuss the court actions and foster care with E. and A. When father started to argue with her, the s ocial worker told them that the y could continue to discuss it, but that they would lose what visitation time they had left. Mother and father went back into the visitation

room. Dr. Weber also witnessed the vi sitation on May 23, 2017, and c orroborated the social worker’s account of what had tra nspired. Dr. Weber testified t hat once mother an d father left the room, E. stopped crying and start ed playing with A. Dr. Weber said that the children talked and played as if nothing had happened.- 9 - The Department also presented e vidence about its monthly meeti ngs with mother and father, beginning in February 2017. Mother and fat her continued to bel ieve that the children were placed in foster care because of the “one time that [father] had abuse d [E.] and all of t he lies that had happened after that.” Mother an d father repeatedly said that E . had to change because he was “a liar” and “crazy.” At no point d id the parents sh ow any unders tanding of how their actions affected the children. Instead, the paren ts focused on how having the c hildren in foster ca re affected them. For example, mother said that it was difficult not having E. at home because she relied on him to communicate in English with other people. Father admitted to speaking with the social worker prior to th e May 23, 2017 visit about what to say and not say to the c hildren. However, father testi fied that he did not understand everything that the social worke r told him because he did not s peak Spanish well. Father explained that he was “playing” when he told E. that he was no longer goi ng to live with t hem and no longer eat Mexican food. He said that he did not intend to make E. cr y. Mother testified that she started learning Spanish in Mexico a nd continued to learn Spanish once she came to the United Stat es; however, her primary langua ge is Triqui. Mother explained that she did not understand all of the words in the Spanish-speakingparenting classes. Mother, however, admitted that she spoke to E. and A. in Spanish, not T riqui. After hearing the evidence and arguments, the circuit court is sued its ruling and entered orders terminating mother and fat her’s parental rights and appr oving the goal of adoption. These appeals followed.
ANALYSIS “On review, ‘[a] trial court is presumed to have thoroughly wei ghed all the evidence, considered the statutory requirements, and made its determinati on based on the child’s best interests.’” Castillo v. Loudoun C ty. Dep’t of Family Servs., 68 Va. App. 547, 558, 811 S.E.2d- 10 - 835, 840-41 (2018) (quoting Logan v. Fairf ax Cty. Dep’t of Huma n Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991)). “Where, as here, the court hears the evidence ore tenus , its finding is entitled to great weight a nd will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Fauquier Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Ridgeway, 59 Va. App. 185, 190, 717 S.E.2d 811, 814 (2011) (quoting Martin v. Pittsylvania Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20, 348 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1986)). Both mother and father argue that the evidence was insufficien t to support a termination of their parental rights. Mother c ontends that she complied with the Department’s requirements and that “her failure to adequately e xpress that she had internaliz ed the services to [the Department’s] satisfaction was due to a langua ge barrier.” Likewise, father asserts that he completed most of the Department’s requirements, but the fact that the parents speak Triqui “greatly handicaps their ability to progress in the counseling that the parents were provided, p rimarily because their Spanish is limited and most of the coun seling was in Spanish.” The circuit court made a factual finding that “there is not a language issue when it came to the parents’ performance with th e services provided.” The circ uit court held that mother and father “were able to converse with various service providers” and note d that “they would respond appropriately and on topic which shows their understanding.” T he circuit court further found that there was “no evidence of a cultural issue that [was] raised by the father.” “We give ‘great deference’ to t he trial court’s factual findin gs and view the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below.” Andrews v. Crea cey, 56 Va. App. 606, 619, 696 S.E.2d 218, 224 (2010) (quoting Blackson v. Blackson, 40 Va. Ap p. 507, 517, 579 S .E.2d 704, 709 (2003)). “On appeal, we will not reverse findings of fact ‘unl ess plainly wrong.’” Budnick v. Budnick, 42 Va. App. 823, 834, 595 S.E.2d 50, 55 (2004) (quotin g Gilman v. Gilman, 32 Va. App. 104, 115, 526 S.E.2d 763, 768-69 (2000)).- 11 - Contrary to the parents’ arguments, the evidence supports the circuit court’s finding that language was not a barrier for m other and father. The Departme nt provided the parents with Spanish-speaking social workers and a Spanish-speaking parent m entor. The Depa rtment referred them to a Spanish parenting clas s. The parents did not inform the social workers that they did not understand, and in fact, converse d in Spanish with the Departme nt and the children. Furthermore, the circuit court did not err in terminating moth er and father’s parental rights and finding that termination of parental rights was in the chil dren’s best interests. The circuit court terminated mother and father’s parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), which states that a court may terminate parental rights if: The parent or parents, wit hout good cause, have been unwilling or unable within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 12 months from the date the child was placed in foster care to remedy substantially the condi tions which led to or required continuat ion of the child’s foster care p lacement, notwithstanding the reasonable and appropriate efforts of social, medical, mental h ealth or other rehabilitative agencies to such end. “[S]ubsection C termination d ecisions hinge not so much on the magnitude of the problem that created the origi nal danger to the child, but on t he demonstrated failure of the parent to make reasonable changes.” Toms v. Hanover Dep’t of S oc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 257, 271, 616 S.E.2d 765, 772 (2005). “Considerab ly more ‘retrospec tive in nature,’ subsection C requires the court t o determine whether the parent has been unw illing or unable to remedy the problems during the period in whichhe has been offered rehabil itation services.” Id. (quoting City of Newport News Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Winslow, 40 Va. Ap p. 556, 562-63, 580 S.E.2d 463, 466 (2003)). Although mother and father comp lied with most of the Departmen t’s requirements, they did not apply what they had been tau ght or show an understanding of how their actions affected the children. The circuit court held, “When it comes to the issue of good cause in the termination,- 12 - again, there is no evidence that cultural or language issues ro se to that level of good cause, nor as to the parents’ behavior.” Despite all of the services, including the parenting class es and the parent mentor, mother and father never comprehended their role in the placement of the children in foster care. In February 2017, mother to ld the social worker that the children were in f oster care because “of the one time that [father] ha d abused [E.] and all of the l ies that had happe ned after that.” Mother and father repeatedly foc used on how the placement of th e children had affected them, as opposed to how their actions affected the children. At the las t visitation in May 2017, mother and father told the children that t hey were no longer Mexican and w ould not eat Mexican food because they had new fam ilies. Mother told E. th at it was like he was dying and that she was going to sell all of his clothes and toys. M other and father testified that they did not realize that their statements would upset E. Theref ore, in spite of all of the services prov ided to the parents over the years, mother and father had not determ ined how to apply what they lea rned to interacting with their children. At the time of the circuit c ourt hearing, E. and A. had been i n foster care for almost two years. The Departmen t presented evidence that A. was doing wel l in foster care and in an adoptive placement. E. initially had displayed behavioral issues, but a fter receiving treatment at Childhelp, he was doing well in a foster ho me, which was a possible adopti ve placement. “It is clearly not in the best interests of a chil d 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] responsibilit ies.” Tackett v. Arlington Cty. Dep’t of Human Servs., 62 Va. App. 296, 322, 746 S.E.2d 509, 52 2 (2013) (quoting Kaywood v. Halifax Cty. Dep’t of Soc . Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S. E.2d 492, 495 (1990)). The evidence supports the circuit court’s finding that the par ents had been “ unwilling or unable within a reasonable peri od of time not to exceed twelve months from the da te the [children were] placed in foste r care to remedy subs tantially the conditi ons which led to or required- 13 - continuation of the child[ren]’s foster care placement.” The c ircuit court did not err in terminating mother and father’s parental ri ghts pursuant to Code § 16.1-283 (C)(2) and approving the goal of adoption for E. and A.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the c ircuit court’s ruling is affirmed. Affirmed.