COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Petty, Russell and Malveaux

PAMELA MORELAND v. Record No. 1970-15-3
LYNCHBURG DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY JUDGE MA RY BENNET T MALVEAUX CHRISTOPHER MORELAND DECEMBER 27, 2016 v. Record No. 2000-15-3
LYNCHBURG DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG R. Edwin Burnette, Jr., Judge (Killis T. Howard, on brief), for appellant Pame la Moreland. Appellant submittin g on brief. (Yvonne Z. Schewel, on brief), for appellant Christopher Moreland. Appellant submitting on brief. (Hope R. Townes; Da vid E. Mass, Guardian ad litemfor the minor children, on briefs), for appe llee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on briefs.
In this consolidated appeal, Christopher Moreland (“father”) and Pamela Moreland (“mother”) appeal an order terminating their parental rights to their ten children. Father and mother contend that the evidence wa s insufficient to warrant termination of their parental rights under Code

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - § 16.1-283(B). 1 For the following reasons, we find the evidence sufficient and affirm the decision below.
I. BACKGROUND When addressing the issue of termination of a parent’s parental rights, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prev ailing party below and grant to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. S ee Logan v. Fairfax Cty. De p’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991). This cas e involves the termina tion of father and mother’s parental rights to their ten childre n, C., V., J., D., J.O., Z., E., H., E.L., and P. 2 2005 – April 2012: Events L eading to Initial Removal The Moreland family has been involved with the Lynchburg Department of Social Services (“LDSS”) since 2005. In 2005, LDSS was c oncerned that the children—there were two in the home at that time—were being left in playpens for extended periods and were under-stimulated. The home was also in an unsanitary condition. Mother reported being depressed and having anxiety att acks, and there were reports of her potential alcohol abuse. From July 2005 to March 2006, a service provider worked with mother to improve her parenting skills. Mother was also provided with mental he alth counseling. Later th at year, mother flushed her psychotropic medications down the toilet beca use “they didn’t work.” She also told her

1 Father and mother also assign error to th e circuit court’s finding that the evidence was sufficient to warrant termination of their residual parental righ ts under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). Code § 16.1-283(B) and 16.1-283(C)(2) are “indivi dual bases upon which a petitioner may seek to terminate residual parental righ ts.” City of Newport News Dep’ t of Soc. Servs. v. Winslow, 40 Va. App. 556, 563, 580 S.E.2d 463, 466 (2003). Upon concluding that termination of parental rights under one subsection of Code § 16.1-283 is warra nted, we need not consider whether termination was appropriate under anothe r subsection. See, e.g, Fields v. Dinwiddie Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 8, 614 S.E.2d 656, 659 (2005). Here, because we conclude that the trial court did not err in termin ating father and mother’s residual parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(B), we do not review its deci sion to terminate thei r parental rights under subsection C.

2 At the time of trial, the oldest child was eleven year s old, and the young est child was two years old.- 3 - counselor that she heard voices telling her to “drown the baby.” Mother reported feeling overwhelmed with caring for her home and children. Her counselor obtained a temporary detaining order, and mother was hospitalized. She signed a temporary entrustment agreement for her children, and they were placed voluntarily in LDSS custody while she was in the hospital. In January 2009, LDSS received a report that J.O. had a scalp infection. The scalp infection started in September 2008 and was bl eeding by the time J.O. was seen by LDSS the following January. LDSS was concerned that mo ther had not followed through with medically necessary treatment. In March 2011, LDSS received a complaint regard ing the unsanitary nature of the home. LDSS found that the family’s hou sing conditions were poor and th at the children were dirty. Father and mother agreed to clean the home an d take steps to get adequate bedding for their children. They had seven ch ildren at this time. In July 2011, LDSS received a complaint regarding C., who had bruising on his forearm consistent with a grab mark. According to the complaint, father grabbed him by the arm, threw him to the ground, and “whooped” him. Father and mother both admitted grabbing C. by the arm. The home was still in poor sa nitary condition at this time. In January 2012, J. was found to have brui sing “all over” his body. Father and mother reported that they had been grabbing J. by the arm, and also that C. was “beating” the other children. Between March 2012 and April 2012, two social workers worked with father and mother to address issues related to housing conditions, hygiene concerns, and parenting and supervision concerns. During a visit on March 15, 2012, th ey noted that the home was in very poor condition and the children were dirty and without adequate beddi ng. The children appeared thin and malnourished. The two youngest children, E. and H., were left alone in playpens and were- 4 - not receiving adequate stimulati on. During their visit, they obse rved Z., age one at the time, playing on the stairs without supe rvision; when the social work ers alerted father and mother, they did not respond, and Z. subsequently fell down th e steps. The social workers returned to the home five days later, on March 20, 2012. E. a nd H. were in playpens again, and both were staring blankly and were non-responsive to social interaction. Exposed wi res were visible in a hole in the wall by E.’s playpen. Father said that E. probably caused the hole by shaking her playpen back and forth. Mother told the social workers that she would not leave the children in the playpens except during nap time. On April 25, 2012, during the period in which th e social workers were assisting father and mother, LDSS received a complaint that J. came to school with several injuries. A forensic nurse concluded that the injuries were not self-inflicted, and some had been caused by direct hits to the face. J.’s teacher reporte d that at least once a week, J. ca me to school with what appeared to be a bruise on his arm in the shape of an adu lt-sized hand. Father stated that he was not aware of any bruises or marks on J., but if he had brui ses, it was probably C.’s fault. Mother also denied seeing any bruises or marks on J. April 2012 – January 2013: Initial Period in Foster Care On April 26, 2012, the eight children that father and mother had at the time, C., V., J., D., J.O., Z., E., and H., were removed from the home a nd placed in foster care. The children were in the custody of LDSS from April 2012 to January 2013. During this period, LDSS provided several services to the parent s. Both parents were offere d outpatient therapy, parenting instruction, medication management, mental hea lth support, and weekly visitation with their children. They were also provided assistance with transportation and improving the conditions of their home.- 5 - Susan Henderson, a licensed professional coun selor, provided serv ices to the older children, V., J., D., J.O., Z., and E., when they were placed in foster care in June 2012. When she started working with the children, they ma nifested anxiety-relate d behaviors, including restlessness, eating issues, diffi culty focusing, difficulty relating to other people, irritability, anger, aggressiveness, and withdrawal from their surroundings. Henderson noted that the children made significant progress toward resolving these behaviors while in their foster homes. Bridgette Kesler, a case manager with the Earl y Intervention Infant and Toddler program, worked with the younger children, H., E., E.L., a nd P., starting in January 2012. Kesler noted that the children thrived in their foster homes, gaining in their development of motor and speech skills. January 2013 – July 2013: Child ren Return to Biological Home The children returned home in January 2013 after the circuit court transferred custody back to their parents. At that time, the court entered a protective order for the children requiring no acts of abuse or neglect by father and mother. When back in the biological home, the oldestchild, C., displayed aggressive behaviors both at school and at home. Additionally, C. had truancy issues. His school also reported that they were concerned about C.’s lack of proper hygiene. C. was violent towards his parents and siblings; V. reported that the children were “all scared of him.” Father and mother purchased four airsoft guns for C. while he was back in the biological home. C.’s case manager recommended that he go to a therapeutic day treatment camp during the summer, but the parents failed to sign him up for this camp. Mother st ated that she signed him up for another camp, but that C. did not attend. In May 2013, LDSS receive d a complaint that mother had stopped giving C. his medications for depression an d ADHD, without notifying his doctor.- 6 - After returning to the biological home, V. ha d a busted lip, and told an investigator that C. had thrown a toy car at her. V. went to scho ol several times with inju ries due to C. throwing items at her. V. also had truancy issues. He nderson, who was only counseling V. at this time, so as not to overwhelm the parents with appointments, noted that after V. re turned to the biological home, she became more irritable and withdrawn. Henderson witne ssed significant regression in V.’s behavior during the peri od when she was back in the home with father and mother. In April 2013, J. was bruised all over his body, as if someone had grabbed him. J. also came to school that month with five red, open sores on his upper back, shoulders, and hand. While back in the biological home, C. shot him with an airsoft gun. In June, 2013, J. experienced auditory and visual hallucinations, an d exhibited odd behaviors. Mother was told to give J. some of C.’s medication over the week end, but she did not follow through with this recommendation. E. was receiving services during this time period, including speech therapy and developmental education. However, between March 18 and April 24, 2013, four appointments for E. were cancelled by mother. In January 2013, a service provider saw father play inappropriately with Z. by hitting him with a toy doll. In February 2013, there was a report that H. was not wearing her gl asses and that her vision had regressed. Additionally, H. had lost all of the language skills she had learned in foster care. The service providers working with H. repo rted that it was very difficult to schedule H.’s “much needed” therapy sessions with mother. H.’s head was misshapen, and she had been referred to a neurosurgeon for treatment. The parents failed to make an appointment with the neurosurgeon. In July 2013, H. was found to have MRSA.- 7 - E.L.’s service providers noted that fatherand mother had been inconsistent with developmental education visits and had canceled numerous schedul ed appointments. In July, 2013, during an unannounced visit, a child protective services investigator saw that E.L. had a zip tie in his mouth. The investigator removed it, and one minute later E.L. had a metal pull tab from a soda can in his mouth. Father blamed J. O. for this, saying that he was “always throwing things in the pack and play [sic].” Every time a LDSS employee went to the home, E.L. was in the Pack ‘n Play. Father stated that he left E.L. and H. in the Pack ‘n Play because he was unable to supervise them with the other children. In July 2013, P., the youngest child, had severe diaper rash between both of her legs and groin area. There were no reported incidents with D. or J.O. after they returned to the biological home from foster care. Both ch ildren had disabilities. D. had de velopment disabilities, and J.O. had intellectual disabilities and speech impairment. In May 2013, father reported that he a nd mother were “mentally and physically stretched” to their limits and that he had observed a mental declin e in mother due to stress caused by C.’s behavior. July 2013 – September 2014: Children Return to Foster Care up to Date of Trial On July 24, 2013, father and mother were found guilty of civil contempt for violating the circuit court’s order of no abuse or neglect. On that date, the eight ch ildren previously removed, and the two children born after the April 2012 removal, E.L. and P., were removed from the biological home. After the children were placed back in foster care, the parents had visitation with their children for one hour a week, excep t for P., who they saw once a week for two hours. At first,- 8 - father and mother saw the nine oldest children together during visitations; however, due to the chaotic nature of these visitations, later vi sits were broken down into smaller groups. The service providers working with father and mother noted multiple issues during visitations. Often these concerne d safety issues. A social work er had to perform the Heimlich maneuver on D. during one visit, after the parents failed to notice D. choking and then panicked as the choking continued. During one visit, E.L. banged his head on the wall and tried to put his finger in an outlet. Throughout the visits, the ch ildren would put items in their mouth and would “stuff[] their faces” with food. The parents did not notice these any of these behaviors. The service providers also noted issues with fa ther and mother’s parenting skills. Mother failed to ensure that H. had her glasses on during visitation, and the glasses are medically necessary to help improve H.’s speech conditi on. During visitation with the youngest child, P., mother and father did not demonstrate that they knew proper feeding techniques. Some of the children also displayed “rocking ” behaviors during visitation, wher e they would rock violently back and forth or side to side, without father or mother intervening. During one visit, J.O. touched Z. in his penis area; he also straddled D. and tried to ki ss her face. Father and mother failed to react to this behavior. Service providers were also concerned about the children’s lack of affection and willingness to visit. The children would not say good bye or “I love you” unless prompted. Several tried to refuse to atte nd visitation. After visitation was over, the children would run to the elevator and seemed relieved to be leaving. Father and mother attended every visitation. Don Wilhelm, a clin ical social worker, explained at trial that the parent s’ behaviors during th e visits “were essentially appropriate [in] attempting to meet needs,” but the visits were “c haotic,” and did not meet the children’s needs for “secure attachment.” During the visits, the children would “vie for attention,” and the parents- 9 - would “randomly address whatever needs were go ing on.” The parents devoted most of their attention to the youngest child at each visit, and had trouble watching the other children. After visitation with father and mother, the children would act out in aggressive or self-harming ways. Wilhelm testified that this behavior was normal “because their experience of living with their biological parent s is a frightening one . . . child ren just are profoundly [a]ffected by neglect.” Wilhelm did not see any change in the parents’ behavior wh ile he observed their visitations. Wilhelm testified that a return to the family home would be “devastating” to the children, because they are in th e process of developing secure attachments with their foster families. Additionally, Wilhelm noted that when the parents brought J.E., a new child born in June 2014, to visitation, this acted as a “trigger” for the other children. 3 Wilhelm did testify that the parents seemed to be “doing the best they could” and made “a genuine effort to meet the kids’ needs” during visitation. Dr. Debra Maxey, a licensed family therapist, completed trauma attachment assessments of the children and noted that they displayed “avo idant attachment” with father and mother. In August 2014, Dr. Maxey held a training session for the parents on how to improve their attachment with their children. Dr. Maxey testif ied that the parents appeared “hopeless” during the training. Father “played on his cell phone” duri ng the session, and at times appeared asleep. Mother had a new baby with her, and paid attention to it without focusing on the training session. There were “no questions and no interacti on” from the parent s during the session. In October 2014, LDSS requested that father and mother have six additional months to attempt to incorporate the new attachment tec hniques they had been taught by Dr. Maxey. In February 2015, when LDSS changed their reco mmended goal to adoption, there were still

3 Mother gave birth to two more children prior to this matter going to trial. When the parents would introduce a new child, the other ch ildren would act out in a variety of ways, including aggressive behavior, excessive masturbation, and severe panic attacks.- 10 - significant concerns about the attachment between fa ther and mother and their children. At trial, Dr. Maxey testified that it would take more than two years for father and mother to improve their attachment with their children, and possibly longer , due to the parents’ low cognitive ability and inability to accept their role in causing the attachment issues. Brandi Stinnett, a licensed pr ofessional counselor, attended supervised visitation and provided parenting education to father and mother from November 2013 through March 2015. She worked with father and mother for about three or four hours a week during this period. Stinnett provided the parents a specific program fo r their needs, with an awareness of their lower intellectual abilities. Stinnett testified that consistency was a problem throughout her time with father and mother, as they would initially use a parenting skill they were taught, but later in a similar situation would not re-apply the skill. Sh e tried to incorporate attachment training from Dr. Maxey into her parenting instruction, but was unsuccessful because the parents could not move beyond basic safety training after several months of instruction. Even after working with father and mother for over a year, Stinnett w ould not have recommende d unsupervised visits. Stinnett did testify that mother was a great listen er and that while father was often distracted, he also tried to listen and participate. Service providers testified that the younger children ha d experienced a variety of developmental delays. They testified that the children’s skill levels, wh ich had regressed after the children were returned to their biological ho me, increased after they were again placed in foster care. In addition, all of the children’s service providers recommended that father and mother’s parental rights should be terminated and that the child ren should not return to their biological home. Dr. Andrew Anderson, a clinical psychologist, conducted assessm ents of both father and mother. These assessments evaluated the parents’ intelligence and parenting ability. Father- 11 - received an IQ score of sixty- three, which falls in the mildly intellectually disabled range. 4 Mother received an IQ score of seventy-one, whic h is at the lower end of the borderline range. Dr. Anderson stated that the pare nts’ intellectual challenges presented them with obstacles in parenting, in that they were more likely to ex perience stress, less able to respond to education and training, had a more limited ability to reas on and solve problems, and were less able to determine a child’s needs as they aged. The assessment of mother provided that she shows “marginal intellectual resources at best” and “significant emotional a nd behavior problems that are li kely to limit her effectiveness in the parent role by limiting her ability to gi ve her children’s needs priority over her own desires.” While mother demonstrated basically sound values and a commitment to her family, she was also preoccupied with her own feelings and desires and lackedthe understanding or judgment to put her children’s needs first. Dr. Anderson concluded that mother was unlikely to be able to parent independently a family the size of her own. The assessment of father provided that he had a strong work ethi c, sound values, and a commitment to family. The assessment also sh owed that father’s limited resources and limited stress tolerance would likely undermine his effectiv eness as a parent. Dr. Anderson noted that he thought it unlikely that father would ever be capab le of parenting independently a family the size of his own. Testimony at trial established that the children had thrived in their foster care homes, and that their foster families were equipped to handl e children with special needs. In February 2015, when LDSS filed the foster care service plan with the reco mmendation of adoption of all children, the eight oldest children had been in fost er care for a total of twenty-nine months, and the two youngest children had been in fost er care for a total of twenty months.

4 The cut-off for a determination of permanent and total disability from employment by reason of mental incapacity for so cial security is sixty-nine.- 12 - At trial, father testified that since the children were removed, he had been working on creating a safety plan. He also stated he would take his responsibilities “more seriously now.” Mother testified that the childre n had fun during visitation, but also admitted that she noticed that the children were “a little a voidant” towards her and father. At trial, four family members, two member s of father and mothers’ church, and their church pastor testified that father and moth er were good and loving parents. Additionally, Christine Ogelsby, a licensed family therapist, testified on behalf of father and mother. Ogelsby began seeing father and mother in March 2015, approximately six months prior to the circuit court trial and testified that she was “very impr essed by the progress that they have made.” Ogelsby taught father and mother parenting skills, which she testified they were able to implement properly. She did not think their in tellectual capacity would prevent them from parenting effectively. The circuit court, after a three-day trial, en tered an order terminating father and mother’s residual parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B) and (C)(2).
II. ANALYSIS “When reviewing a decision to terminate pare ntal rights, we presume the circuit court ‘thoroughly weighed all the evid ence, considered the statutor y requirements, and made its determination based on the child’s best interests.’” Toms v. Hanover Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 257, 265-66, 616 S.E.2d 765, 769 (2005) (quoti ng Fields v. Dinwiddie Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 7, 614 S.E.2d 656, 659 (2005)). The circu it court has “broad discretion in making the decisions necessary to guard and to fostera child’s best interests.” Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 328, 387 S.E .2d 794, 795 (1990). “Therefore, in a case involving termination of parental rights, ‘[t]he trial court’s ju dgment, when based on evidence heard ore tenus , will not be disturbed on appeal unle ss plainly wrong or without evidence to- 13 - support it.’” Eaton v. Wash. Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 66 Va. App. 317, 324, 785 S.E.2d 231, 235 (2016) (alteration in original ) (quoting Fields, 46 Va. App. at 7, 614 S.E.2d at 659). When considering termination of parental righ ts, “the paramount cons ideration of a trial court is the child’s best interests.” Logan, 13 Va. App. at 128, 409 S.E.2d at 463. Pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B), a court may onl y terminate parental rights after finding, based upon clear and convincing evid ence, that: (1) the child suffe red neglect or abuse; (2) the neglect or abuse presented a serious and substa ntial threat to the child’s life, health or development; and (3) it is not reas onably likely that the conditions which resulted in such neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected or el iminated within a reasonable period of time. On appeal, father and mother argue that the evidence was insuffi cient to support the termination of their residual parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(B) because the evidence was not clear and convincing that they caused their ch ildren to suffer neglect or abuse. In addition, they assert that they undertook significant efforts to eliminate any ongoing or future risk to the children. Evidence of Neglect or Abuse Father and mother contend that the evid ence was not clear and convincing that they caused their children to suffer negl ect or abuse that presented a se rious and substantial threat to their life, health, or development. Father and mo ther assert that there was “little evidence” that their children were neglected. However, upon review of the record, it is cl ear that there was an abundance of evidence that the children suffered neglect. At the time of trial in September 2015, the family has been involved with LDSS since 2005. LDSS social workers repeatedly repor ted that the children appeared thin and malnourished. They also noted consistent conc erns regarding the children’s lack of basic- 14 - hygiene. At various points throughout their in teraction with LDSS, mother and father’s home was unsanitary and there was in adequate bedding for their ch ildren. These conditions were repeatedly pointed out to mother and fa ther but they failed to remedy them. Throughout their involvement with LDSS, the children often had seri ous medical issues, and father and mother failed to follow through with medically necessary treatment. Father and mother repeatedly failed to take them to appoi ntments to address the children’s various medical and developmental needs. While back in the biological home, service providers noted that several of the children’s developmental skill leve ls regressed; they increased when the children were returned to foster care. In addition, seve ral children displayed anxi ety-related behaviors, which decreased after they entered foster care. LDSS employees and service providers also obs erved father and moth er failing recognize or correct safety issues that continually occurred in their hom e. Father and mother also purchased airsoft guns for their oldest child, C., which C. used to inflict injury on the other children. The children would also come to school with bruises, some of which were caused by C., and others of which appeared to ha ve been caused by adult-sized hands. After a three-day trial, the trial court concl uded that the children we re neglected and that this neglect presented a serious a nd substantial threat to their life, health, or development. Here, the evidence, viewed in totality, clearl y supports the circuit court’s finding. Effort to Eliminate Ongoing or Future Risk Father and mother also argue on appeal thatthey had undertaken significant efforts to eliminate any ongoing or future risk to the chil dren, and sought and accepted help from LDSS, and therefore should not have thei r parental rights terminated. LDSS provided father and mother with a vari ety of services in order to help them effectively parent a family of their size. Fath er and mother attended ev ery visitation and worked- 15 - with LDSS service providers; how ever, they were unable to ma ke notable progress in their efforts. The children displayed avoidant attachment w ith father and mother. Dr. Maxey provided father and mother with training on how to improv e their attachment level with their children. Father and mother attended this training session, but failed to pay attenti on during it. They were later unable to improve their attachment with thei r children, even after being given an additional six months to implement the strategies they we re taught. Further, Dr. Maxey indicated that it would take more than two years for father and mother to improve their attachment with their children due to the parents’ low cognitive ability. The parents were provided with a parenti ng coach who developed for them a specific program tailored to their needs. Stinnett work ed with father and mother from November 2013 through March 2015 for approximately three or f our hours a week. Father and mother were inconsistent in using the parenting skills they had been taught. The parenting coach tried to incorporate attachment training, but was unable to do so because father and mother were unable to move beyond basic safety training. Father and mother had over a year with visita tion with their children while they were in foster care. Wilhelm testified that father a nd mother’s behavior did not change during these visits, and the visits remained chaotic and traumatic for the children. Dr. Anderson testified that it wa s unlikely that either father or mother would ever be able to parent independently a family the size of th eir own. Father himsel f reported that he and mother were “mentally and physically stretched” to their limits and that he had observed a mental decline in mother due to stress. After working with father and mother for exte nded periods of time, all of the children’s service providers recommended that father and mother’s parental ri ghts should be terminated and- 16 - that the children should not return to their biological home. While Ogelsby testified that father and mother had made progress in learning parent ing skills, she had only worked with them for the six months prior to trial, when father a nd mother only had two child ren in their home. While the evidence established that father and mother loved their children, their behavior over time demonstrated that th ey could not provide a safe an d stable environment for their children. The circuit cour t specifically noted that father and mother had the opportunity, when their children were initially removed, to improve the care of the family, as they were effectively “put on notice” that they could lose custody of th eir children. The circuit court found that father and mother were not unwilling, but were unable to effectively improve their parenting skills and remedy safety issues, despite any education and tr aining that could be pr ovided. “[S]ubsection B [of Code § 16.1-283] ‘speaks prospectively’ and re quires the circuit court to make a judgment call on the parent’s ability, following a finding of neglect or abuse, to substantially remedy the underlying problems.” Toms, 46 Va. App. at 270-71, 616 S.E.2d at 772 (quoting City of Newport News Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Winslow, 40 Va. App. 556, 562, 580 S.E.2d 463, 466 (2003)). “As many courts have observed, one permi ssible ‘measure of a parent’s future potential is undoubtedly revealed in the parent’s past behavi or with the child.” Petry v. Petry, 41 Va. App. 782, 793, 589 S.E.2d 458, 463 (2003) (quoting In re Jasmon O., 787 P.2d 1297, 1310 (Cal. 1994)). “[P]ast actions and rela tionships over a meaningful pe riod serve as good indicators of what the future may be expected to hold.” Linkous v. Kingery, 10 Va. App. 45, 56, 390 S.E.2d 188, 194 (1990) (quoting Frye v. Spotte, 4 Va. App. 530, 536, 359 S.E.2d 315, 319 (1987)). As demonstrated by father and mother’s past beha vior, the evidence here supported the circuit court’s finding that the parents did not and could not substantially remedy the underlying problems. Therefore, we reject father and mothe r’s argument that their parental rights should not be terminated due to their efforts in comp lying with services provided by LDSS.- 17 - Further, “[t]he [termination] statute clearl y contemplates that efforts to resolve the ‘conditions’ relevant to termination are cons trained by time.” Lecky v. Reed, 20 Va. App. 306, 312, 456 S.E.2d 538, 540 (1995). “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 resuming his responsibilities.” Kayw ood v. Halifax Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1990). Here, when LDSS filed th e foster care service plan with the recommendation of adoption of all children, the eight oldest children had been in foster care for a total of twenty-nine months, a nd the two youngest children had been in foster care for twenty months. Service providers indicat ed that it was unclear that fath er and mother could ever learn the skills necessary to parent thei r family and that even if they were able to obtain these skills, it would be a lengthy process. Viewed in the light most favorable to LD SS, clear and convincing evidence proved that the children suffered neglect that “presented a se rious and substantial threat to [their lives], health or development,” Code § 16.1-283(B)(1), and “[i]t is not reasonably likely that the conditions which resulted in such neglect or abuse can be substantially corre cted or eliminated so as to allow the [children’s] safe return to [the ir] parent or parents with in a reasonable period of time,” Code § 16.1-283(B)(2). Therefore, the re cord supports the circuit court’s decision to terminate father and mother’s pare ntal rights under Code § 16.1-283(B).
III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the circuit court did not err in terminating the parental rights of both parent s. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is affirmed. Affirmed.