COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judge Alston, Senior Judge Coleman and Re tired Judge Hodges 

JOEVANY RODRIGUEZ MEMORANDUM OPINION  v. Record No. 0847-13-3 PER CURIAM DECEMBER 10, 2013 FRANKLIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF FRANKLIN COUNTY William N. Alexander, II, Judge (Stephen M. Maddy; Maddy & Nester, PLLC, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. (Carolyn H. Furrow; De anna P. Stone, Guardian ad litem for the infant children; Rhodes, Ferguson & Stone, Ltd., on brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on brief.
Joevany Rodriguez, appellant, appeals the order terminating his residual parental rights to his three minor children. Appell ant contends the trial court er red by finding the Department presented clear and convincing evid ence sufficient to terminate his residual parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B). Up on review of the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that the trial court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court. When addressing matters concerning the custody and care of a child, this Court’s paramount c onsideration is the child’ s best interests. On appeal, we presume that the trial court thoroughly weighed all the evidence, considered the statutory requirements, and made its determination based on the child’s be st interests. The trial court is vested with broad discretion in ma king decisions “necessary to guard and to foster a child’s best interests.” We w ill not disturb a trial

 Retired Judge William H. Hodges took part in the consideration of this case by designation pursuant to Code § 17.1-400(D).

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designa ted for publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - court’s factual findings on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support them. Brown v. Spotsylvania Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 43 Va. App. 205, 211, 597 S.E.2d 21 4, 217 (2004) (quoting Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 328, 387 S. E.2d 794, 795 (1990) ) (citations omitted). “Furthermore, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the pr evailing party below and its evidence is afforded all reas onable inferences fairly deducibl e therefrom.” Logan v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991). In May of 2011, appellant was imprisoned on felony charges in Pe nnsylvania. Kimberly Maul, then mother of the childre n, was unable to care for and she lter their three minor children. Mother and children were homeless and could no longer stay in the shelter in which they had been residing. Mother requested that the children be removed from her care. Th e parents had a history of drug abuse, violence, and aban donment. Both appella nt and mother had been incarcerated, both used drugs, and appellant would beat the children in mother’s absence. The oldest child came into care with seventeen cavities. The middle child was out of control, threatening family memb ers and others, was exhibiting psychotic behaviors, and was on anti-psychotic medication. The yo ungest child was in the best p hysical condition. All children were behind in their immunizations. By June of 2011, appellant was on parole and had moved to Virginia, but could not find housing. Appellant filed for custody of the children and attended one court hear ing. At a July 2011 hearing, appellant did not appear because he had returned to Pennsylvania since he could not find stable housing in Virginia as required for his parole. Appell ant and mother were ordered to, inter alia , complete psychological and substance abuse ev aluations, attend parent, psychological, and substance abuse counseling, maintain employment an d housing, and cooperate with the Department, with the goal of returning the children home. Appellant failed to comple te any of the required conditions in the serv ice plan. Appellant missed all court appearances after the Ju ne 2011 hearing.- 3 - After he returned to Pennsylvania, he reportedly moved to Georgia and Flor ida, but his whereabouts were unknown. Appellant did not maintain contact with his attorney or the Department. Notably, the children have been thriving in foster care. The children are healthy and have resolved many behavioral problems (e.g., the middle child no longer requires anti-psychotic medication). Appellant contends the Department failed to show that he abused or neglected the children. Appellant asserts there was no evid ence that he was not a ttempting to meet the goals of the service plan. We disagree. The Department proffered evid ence that appellant be at the children and that they were affected by his substance abuse and incarceratio ns. While appellant f iled for custody of the children, he did noth ing toward complying with the conditions of returning the children home. He did not complete any psychological, parenting, or substance abuse evaluations or counseling. Appellant was unable to secure ho using. Appellant did not mainta in contact with the Department and failed to notify them of his whereabouts. A ppellant failed to appear at all court proceedings after June 2011. From this ev idence, the trial court reasonably concluded appellant would not remedy the conditions that led to foster care and aba ndoned his children once he relocated and discontinued all contact with the Department. The evidence supports the trial court’s conclusions that the children’s health, safety, and development were threatened, that appellant was not able to correct or eliminate the problems that led to foster care placement, and that it was in the children’s best interests to terminate appellant’s residual parent al rights. “It is clearly not in the best interests of a child to spend a leng thy period of time waiting to find out when, or even if, a parent will be capable of resuming his or [or her] responsibilities.” Kaywood v. Halifax Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1990).- 4 - Accordingly, the trial court did not err by termin ating appellant’s residual parental rights to all three children. For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ruling is affirmed. Affirmed.