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

CATHY WILLIAMS MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0186-05-2 PER CURIAM JULY 26, 2005 BUCKINGHAM DEPA RTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF BUCKINGHAM COUNTY Richard S. Blanton, Judge (James C. Bell, on brief), for appellant. (Michael J. Brickhill; Michael J. Brickhill, P.C., on brief), for appellee. (Michael J. Hallahan, II, Guardian ad litem for the minor children).
Cathy Williams appeals a decision terminating her parental rights to her two minor children. She contends the evidence was insu fficient to support th e termination of her parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B) and (C). Upon reviewing the record and brie fs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affi rm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27. Background We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prev ailing party below and grant to it all reasonable inferences fair ly deducible therefrom. See Logan v. Fairfax County Dep’t of
Human Dev. , 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 462 (1991). So viewed, the evidence established that the mother contac ted the Buckingham Department of Social Services on February 5,

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - 2003 seeking assistance for financial and housing i ssues. Two months later, the daughter reported that her father had sexually abused her and her tw o-year-old brother. The two children were taken into emergency custody. The Department placed the childr en into foster care and prepared a foster care plan with the initial goal of return ing the children hom e. The Department id entified several issu es that needed to be resolved before the children could be returned home. The mother had me ntal health issues and parenting problems. The father was a previous sex offender, was suspected of and later convicted of abusing his two children, and ha d substance abuse problems. The children needed mental-health services to address the sexual abuse they suffere d. In addition, mari tal discord and housing problems needed resolution. To remedy these issu es, the Department recomm ended that the mother maintain a household separate fro m the father, receive me ntal-health parenting and counselin g. The Department also assisted the mo ther in finding a job, and it ar ranged supervised visitation for mother with the children with the goal of helpin g her to make good choice s when she wa s with the children. Despite the assistance offered by the Depart ment, the mother failed to progress in these areas. Although she rece ived a mental health evaluation, she failed to complete the recommended counseling. Because of a “lack of engagement” between mother and children during visitation, the Department referred the mother and children for psychological assessment and treatment. Dr. Robert Marvin evaluated the mother and children and found them to have severe and “high risk” attachment issues. Dr. Marvin concluded that mother needed three to five years of psychotherapy to address her problems and that, during this therapy, the children woul d need to be placed in stable homes for their own well-being. After the mother reported to the Department that her husb and was a “dangerous, alcoholic monster,” the Department a rranged for her to live at a shelter for abused women. Within a week,- 3 - however, the mother reunited with her husband. The mother also threaten ed to kill her adult daughter, to kidnap her children, and to harm the foster care and daycare providers that were caring for her children. In light of these events, the Department terminated the mother’s visitation and changed the foster care goal to adoption. At the c onclusion of the hearing, the trial judge terminated the mother’s parental rights upon the Department’s recommendation. Analysis When considering term ination of a parent’s residual rights to a child, “the paramount consideration of a trial court is th e child’s best interests.” Logan , 13 Va. App. at 12 8, 409 S.E.2d at 463. On review, “[a] trial cour t is presumed to have thorou ghly weighed all the evidence, considered the statutory require ments, and made its determinat ion based on the child’s best interests.” Farley v. Farley , 9 Va. App. 326, 329, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990). “The trial court’s judgment, when based on evidence heard ore tenus , will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Logan , 13 Va. App. at 128, 409 S.E.2d at 463. “The termination of residual parental rights is a grave, drastic and irreversible action.” Helen W. v. Fairfax Coun ty Dep’t of Human Dev. , 12 Va. App. 877, 883, 407 S.E.2d 25, 28-29 (1991). Thus, we look to the statutory framework. Code § 16.1-283(B) provide s that parental rights of a parent of neglected or abused children may be terminated if the trial judge finds by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the chil dren’s best interests, th at the neglect or abuse presented a substantial threat to the children’s life , health, and development, and that it is unlikely the conditions that resulted in the neglect or abuse can be substantiall y corrected or eliminated so as to allow the children to safely return to their parent ’s care within a reasonable period of time. Proof that the parent, without good caus e, has not responded or followed through with appropriate efforts by the various agencies designed to reduce, eliminate, or pr event the neglect or abuse is prima facie evidence of these conditions.- 4 - Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) requires proof by clear and convincing evid ence (1) that the termination is in the best interests of the child, (2) that “rea sonable and appropriate” services have been offered to help the parent “substantially remedy the conditions which led to or required continuation of the child’s foster care placement,” and (3) that, despite these services, the parent has failed, “without good cause,” to remedy those conditions “within a re asonable amount of time not to exceed twelve months from the da te the child was placed in foster care.” When as here, the trial judge’s decision is based upon evidence considered ore tenus we presume the trial judge has “‘thoroughly weighed all the ev idence [and] considered the stat utory requirements.’” Logan , 13 Va. App. at 128, 40 9 S.E.2d at 463 (citation omitted). The evidence was sufficient to prove clear ly and convincingly that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in her children’s be st interest. Although the mother was offered services and assistance, she failed to make any progress in addressi ng the abuse and neglect of her children during the one and one-half years the children were in fo ster care. Rather, the mother threatened to kidnap the children from their caregiv ers and threatened to harm those caring for her children. In addition, she reunited with her abusive husband af ter the Department assisted her in obtaining safe shelter. Dr. Ma rvin concluded th at the mother needed th ree to five years of psychotherapy to address her proble ms leading to attachme nt issues with her children and that the children would need to be placed in stable homes for the du ration of her treatment. “It is clearly not in the best interests of a child to spend a lengthy period of time wa iting to find out wh en, or even if, a parent will be capable of resuming his respons ibilities.” Kaywood v. Ha lifax County Dep’t of Soc. Servs. , 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1990). The record, therefore, supports the trial judge’s finding that the Department proved by clear and convincing evidence th at the mother’s parental rights sh ould be terminated and that the- 5 - termination of mother’s parental rights was in her children’s be st interest. Accordingly, we summarily affirm th e judgment. See Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.