COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

FRANCISCO ZAVALA 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1428-98-4 PER CURIAM 

 OCTOBER 6, 1998 

ARLINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

 OF HUMAN SERVICES 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY 

William T. Newman, Jr., Judge 

 (Sean D. O'Malie; Pelton, Balland, Young, 

Demsky, Baskin & O'Malie, P.C., on brief), 

for appellant. 

 (Mary E. Craig, Assistant County Attorney, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Francisco Zavala (father) appeals the decision of the 

circuit court terminating his residual parental rights. The 

circuit court found that the Arlington County Department of Human 

Services (DHS) presented clear and convincing evidence sufficient 

under Code § 16.1-283(C) to support its petition to terminate the 

parental rights of father and his wife to their three children. 

The mother did not appeal the circuit court's termination 

decision. On appeal, father contends that the trial court erred 

in finding the evidence sufficient. Upon reviewing the record 

and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is 

without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of 

the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

 "When addressing matters concerning a child, including the 

termination of a parent's residual parental rights, the paramount 

consideration of a trial court is the child's best interests." 

Logan v. Fairfax County Dep't of Human Development, 13 Va. App. 

123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991). 

 "In matters of a child's welfare, trial 

courts are vested with broad discretion in 

making the decisions necessary to guard and 

to foster a child's best interests." 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." 

Id. (citations omitted). "Code § 16.1-283 embodies 'the 

statutory scheme for the . . . termination of residual parental 

rights in this Commonwealth' [which] . . . 'provides detailed 

procedures designed to protect the rights of the parents and 

their child,' balancing their interests while seeking to preserve 

the family." Lecky v. Reed, 20 Va. App. 306, 311, 456 S.E.2d 

538, 540 (1995) (citations omitted). 

 Code § 16.1-283(C) provides that the residual parental 

rights of a child placed in foster care may be terminated if the 

trial court finds it is in the best interests of the child and, 

in pertinent part, 

 [t]he parent or parents, without good cause, 

have been unwilling or unable within a 

reasonable period not to exceed twelve months 

to remedy substantially the conditions which 

led to the child's foster care placement, 

notwithstanding the reasonable and 

appropriate efforts of social, medical, 

mental health or other rehabilitative 

agencies to such end. 
- 3 - 

Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). 

 DHS initially provided services to the family in 1991. 

Subsequently, DHS provided numerous services in connection with 

repeated emergency removals due to abuse and neglect of the 

children. The first removal occurred following an incident of 

domestic violence by father against the mother and the two older 

children. The mother was psychotic and was hospitalized 

temporarily. Father acknowledged that he could not care for the 

children. He did not visit the children while they were in 

foster care. DHS offered father parenting classes and home-based 

services with the goal of returning the children to their home, 

but neither father nor mother worked successfully with the 

service providers. Additional incidents of domestic violence 

occurred. Although the mother continued to suffer repeated bouts 

of mental illness, she attended therapy and took the prescribed 

medication only sporadically. 

 Father admitted that he had had problems with alcohol 

previously, but denied he had problems with domestic violence. 

He also denied that the mother suffered from mental illness. 

Dr. Gloria Morote, a licensed clinical psychologist, testified 

that father's test results indicated that he had both motor and 

neurological abnormalities, resulting in poor short term memory, 

poor attention, poor judgment, inability to handle stress, and 

aggression. Father's behavior indicated that he had an impaired 

perception of reality. While Dr. Morote believed father's 
- 4 - 

neurological problems were possibly organic in nature, she was 

pessimistic about the likelihood that he would improve because he 

refused further neurologic testing to confirm the basis for his 

problems and refused other treatment which could have alleviated 

his problems. Father's neurological problems left him unable to 

work with others, unable to accommodate others, and unable to 

modify his behavior. 

 DHS provided numerous services for the parents, including 

parenting classes, anger management classes, medical and 

psychological assistance, home-based services, and transportation 

assistance. DHS also relied upon Spanish language interpreters 

and workers, both to ensure accurate communication and to avoid 

any cultural bias or misunderstandings. Father completed several 

portions of the programs required, but did so with such 

resistance that the services were ineffective. 

 Credible evidence demonstrated that, while in their parents' 

custody, the children received poor care. They dressed 

inappropriately for cold weather and went to day care hungry and 

unclean. There were repeated incidents of domestic abuse. The 

children's therapist described the oldest child as withdrawn, 

worried, sad, and suffering from feelings of helplessness. The 

middle child spoke of feeling "like a grown-up on the inside," 

and was described as precocious and overprotective of both her 

older and younger siblings. The youngest child was withdrawn and 

intensely angry. All three children needed permanence and 
- 5 - 

consistency in a home with limits, but not anger. 

 Based upon the evidence, the trial court found that the 

children suffered neglect and abuse, including inappropriate 

clothing, poor hygiene, and inadequate food; that the abuse and 

neglect presented a serious and substantial threat to the 

children's life, health, and development; and that it was not 

reasonably likely that those conditions could be substantially 

corrected or eliminated so as to allow the children's safe return 

to their parents within a reasonable period of time. The trial 

court also found that father was unwilling or unable to remedy 

substantially those underlying conditions, notwithstanding the 

efforts made by agencies. The trial court expressly found that 

father suffered from a form of dementia and refused neurological 

examination or appropriate services. 

 Father contends that he complied substantially with the 

service plans and that the trial court erred by failing to grant 

his motion to reconsider and continue the case for the provision 

of additional services. We disagree. The evidence demonstrated 

that the children had spent over half their lives in foster care. 

 The court did not err in denying father's request for additional 

time within which to remedy the underlying problems. "It is 

clearly not in the best interest 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." Kaywood v. 

Dep't of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 
- 6 - 

(1990). 

 Because credible evidence supported the trial court's 

determination that DHS met the statutory requirements of Code 

§ 16.1-283 to terminate father's parental rights, that 

determination was not plainly wrong or lacking in evidence to 

support it. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is 

summarily affirmed. 

 Affirmed.