Court Opinion

ID: 9368923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-07 15:12:40.261509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:11.735959
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

              Present: Judges Beales, Ortiz and Causey
UNPUBLISHED

              RICHARD HOWARD COX

              v.      Record No. 0060-22-3

              CARROLL COUNTY DEPARTMENT
               OF SOCIAL SERVICES
                                                                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION*
              SONYA JANE COX                                                         PER CURIAM
                                                                                   FEBRUARY 7, 2023
              v.      Record No. 0067-22-3

              CARROLL COUNTY DEPARTMENT
               OF SOCIAL SERVICES

                                    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CARROLL COUNTY
                                                 Brett L. Geisler, Judge

                                (R. Christopher Munique; Lacy, Campbell & Munique, PC, on
                                brief), for appellant Richard Howard Cox. Appellant submitting on
                                brief.

                                (Elizabeth Rakes, on brief), for appellant Sonya Jane Cox.
                                Appellant submitting on brief.

                                (Michael R. Bedsaul; Mary Foil Russell; Karen Loftin, Guardian ad
                                litem for the minor child; Sands Anderson, PC; Loftin & Osborne, on
                                brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on
                                brief.

                      Richard Cox and Sonya Cox (collectively, “the grandparents”) appeal the circuit court’s

              child protective, adjudicatory, and dispositional orders. They argue that the circuit court erred in

              entering a child protective order and in finding that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the

              child was abused or neglected. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude

                      *
                          Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
that the Circuit Court of Carroll County did not err. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court’s

judgment.

                                        BACKGROUND1

       “Because the appellee, [the Department], prevailed at trial, we must view the evidence

and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to it.” Lowe v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare of

City of Richmond, 231 Va. 277, 279 (1986).

       In 2020, the child, who was four years old and diagnosed with autism, was living with the

grandparents and his biological mother, Holli Cox (“mother”).2 In January 2020, the child left

the home unnoticed and was found on Route 58, a four-lane highway in front of their home.

Consequently, the Carroll County Department of Social Services (“the Department”) became

involved with the family, and the grandparents installed deadbolt locks on the doors “to prevent

[the child] from leaving the home again unsupervised.”

       The child was again found wandering on Route 58. Dr. Frank Falbo testified that on the

evening of August 13, 2020, he was driving home and saw a young child run across Route 58.

Dr. Falbo stopped the car to check on the child, who appeared to be “about four to eight years

old.” Dr. Falbo noticed that the child was not wearing shoes and seemed to have “some sort of

developmental delay.” Dr. Falbo saw a house with a light on nearby and carried the child toward

the house. As they approached the house, a van “pulled up to the home,” and a man exited the

       1
          The record in these cases was sealed. Nevertheless, we find it necessary to unseal
relevant portions of the record to resolve the issues the grandparents have raised. Evidence and
factual findings below that are necessary to address the assignments of error are included in this
opinion. Consequently, “[t]o the extent that this opinion mentions facts found in the sealed
record, we unseal only those specific facts, finding them relevant to the decision in this case.
The remainder of the previously sealed record remains sealed.” Levick v. MacDougall, 294 Va.
283, 288 n.1 (2017).
       2
          Mother had suffered a traumatic brain injury after a car accident and was unable to care
for the child on her own. Mother and Sonya Cox (“Sonya”), the child’s grandmother, had joint
custody of the child.
                                               -2-
van. The child appeared to recognize the man, and the man seemed “surprised and distraught

that the child was on the roadway.” The man told Dr. Falbo that he “had gone to get cigarettes at

Dollar General.” Because the child appeared to recognize the man “as a family member,”

Dr. Falbo left the child with him.

       Dr. Falbo did not ask for the man’s name, but he reported the incident to the Carroll

County Sheriff’s Office. That same evening, Dr. Falbo met with the police and showed them the

home where he dropped off the child. The police went to the house and could hear a television

inside the home, but no one answered the door. The police reported the incident to the

Department.

       The Department subsequently met with the grandparents and mother, who agreed to a

safety plan because this was the second report of the child wandering on Route 58 unsupervised.3

The safety plan provided that the child would live with Tracy and Jennifer Cox, the child’s great

uncle and great aunt. The safety plan also provided that the grandparents and mother could have

supervised visitation with the child. The Department also was concerned about the condition of

the home so the safety plan directed the grandparents to “clean the residence.”4 The parties

agreed that the safety plan would remain in effect until September 30, 2020, when it could be

“extended, revised, or dissolved.”

       The Department implemented a second safety plan dated October 27, 2020. The second

safety plan related to the earlier incidents and stated that the child would remain with his great

uncle and great aunt, Tracy and Jennifer Cox. The second safety plan again permitted supervised

visitation between the child and the grandparents and directed the grandparents to cooperate with

       3
        The safety plan noted that Richard Cox (“Richard”) had denied that the incident
occurred.
       4
         According to the Department, the grandparents “cleaned up the home so it was in better
condition.”
                                             -3-
the Department and all recommended services, including participating in therapy “to improve

parenting of [the child].” The Department signed the second safety plan, but the grandparents

refused to sign the plan.

       On December 20, 2020, the grandparents picked up the child from Tracy Cox and

brought him back to their house for the holidays. The grandparents informed the Department

that their attorney had advised them that “Sonya’s custody order took priority over the Safety

Plan that had been implemented by the Department.” The Department told the grandparents that

the safety plan had “to be followed and, if they refused to return [the child], the Department

would seek court action against them.” On December 21, 2020, the Department filed a petition

seeking a protective order.

       On December 22, 2020, the Carroll County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District

Court (“the JDR court”) entered an ex parte preliminary child protective order against the

grandparents. On December 30, 2020, the JDR court held a hearing and entered another

preliminary child protective order against the grandparents. The JDR court ordered that the child

“reside with Jennifer and Tracy Cox until further notice of the court” and permitted supervised

visitation between the child and the grandparents. The JDR court further ordered the

grandparents to cooperate and participate in all recommended services. The JDR court

scheduled a review hearing for February 25, 2021.

       At the review hearing, the JDR court adjudicated that the child was abused or neglected

and transferred custody of the child to the Department. The JDR court also entered a child

protective order and a dispositional order. The JDR court ordered that the child remain in the

care of Tracy and Jennifer Cox and that visitation with the grandparents was at the Department’s

discretion. The grandparents appealed to the circuit court.

                                               -4-
       On August 26, 2021, the parties appeared before the circuit court. The Department

presented its evidence of the January and August 2020 incidents and that the grandparents had

picked up the child without permission in December 2020. After the Department presented its

evidence, Richard moved to strike; the trial court denied Richard’s motion.

       Richard then testified that he “did not believe that [the child] escaped from his home and

was found alone on Route 58 by Falbo on August 13, 2020.” He also denied seeing Dr. Falbo on

that date. Richard explained that when he left to go to the store, the child was asleep on the

couch and was still there when he returned from his errand. Richard catalogued the safety

precautions that he and Sonya had taken, including installing deadbolt locks, security cameras,

alarms, and signs, to ensure that the child would “not be able to get out of the house

unsupervised.” Richard thought that the first safety plan had expired on September 30, 2020,

and he denied receiving notice of a second safety plan. He also denied ever refusing to sign a

safety plan. Richard testified that he and Sonya had tried to contact the Department about

bringing the child home. When they received no response from the Department, “they consulted

with an attorney and followed his advice to go and pick [the child] up” from Tracy and Jennifer

Cox.

       The January 2020 incident was “very scary” to Sonya because she did not know that the

child could open doors. After that incident, she and Richard installed deadbolt locks on the

doors. Sonya also thought the safety plan had expired on September 30, 2020. She claimed that

she was following the attorney’s advice when she and Richard picked up the child from Tracy

Cox. Sonya further emphasized that for the two weeks that the child was with them during the

holidays, he did not escape from their home.

       At the conclusion of all the evidence, Richard renewed his motion to strike. Both

Richard and Sonya argued that the Department had not met its burden of proof that the child was

                                               -5-
abused or neglected and asked the circuit court to deny the Department’s request for a protective

order. The Department and the child’s guardian ad litem advocated for the entry of the

protective order and a finding that the child was neglected. After hearing all the evidence and

argument, the circuit court found that the child wandered off from the home in January 2020 and

was seen along Route 58, a four-lane highway near his home, and that he also left his home and

was found “running out on Route 58 on August 13, 2020.” The trial court found Dr. Falbo’s

testimony “very compelling” and found it “extremely unlikely that two different four-year old

children were running out on Route 58 on August 13, 2020.” The circuit court did not believe

Richard and Sonya’s testimony of the events on August 13, 2020, and the circuit court held that

the child was an abused or neglected child and granted the Department’s petition for a protective

order against the grandparents. On December 15, 2021, the circuit court entered the child

protective, adjudicatory, and dispositional orders. These appeals followed.

                                           ANALYSIS

       On appeal, the grandparents argue that the circuit court erred in entering the child

protective order and by finding that the Department proved by a preponderance of the evidence

that the child was abused or neglected.

       “On review, ‘[a] trial court is presumed to have thoroughly weighed all the evidence,

considered the statutory requirements, and made its determination based on the child’s best

interests.’” Castillo v. Loudoun Cnty. Dep’t of Fam. Servs., 68 Va. App. 547, 558 (2018)

(alteration in original) (quoting Logan v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Dev., 13 Va. App. 123,

128 (1991)). “Because the trial judge heard the evidence ore tenus and was able to judge the

credibility of the witnesses, we must afford his decree the same weight as a jury verdict and

uphold his findings unless they are plainly wrong or without evidence to support them.” Davis v.

Holsten, 270 Va. 389, 397-98 (2005).

                                               -6-
       Code § 16.1-228(1) defines an abused or neglected child as any child:

               [w]hose parents or other person responsible for his care creates or
               inflicts, threatens to create or inflict, or allows to be created or
               inflicted upon such child a physical or mental injury by other than
               accidental means, or creates a substantial risk of death,
               disfigurement or impairment of bodily or mental functions.

In addition, Code § 16.1-228(5) defines an abused or neglected child as any child “[w]ho is

without parental care or guardianship caused by the unreasonable absence or the mental or

physical incapacity of the child’s parent, guardian, legal custodian, or other person standing in

loco parentis.” “[T]he statutory definitions of an abused or neglected child do not require proof

of actual harm or impairment having been experienced by the child.” Jenkins v. Winchester

Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 12 Va. App. 1178, 1183 (1991). Proof by a preponderance of the evidence

is the appropriate standard for abuse and neglect cases. Cumbo v. Dickenson Cnty. Dep’t of Soc.

Servs., 62 Va. App. 124, 130 (2013).

       The trial court found that the child had escaped from the grandparents’ home unnoticed

on two separate occasions within the last year. On both occasions, the child was found

wandering alone on a four-lane highway. After the first incident, the grandparents knew that the

child could open the doors and leave the home, yet the child was left unattended again in

circumstances in which he was able to escape. The trial court rejected the grandparents’ denial

of the August incident; instead, it found that Dr. Falbo’s account was “very compelling.”

Dr. Falbo testified that he saw a young child between the ages of four and eight, running across

the highway, in the dark, without shoes. He also testified that he picked up the child and

returned him to the home where the grandparents live, which the grandparents denied ever

happened. However, the trial court found that it would be “extremely unlikely that two different

four-year old children were running out on Route 58 on August 13, 2020.” “It is well established

that the trier of fact ascertains a witness’ credibility, determines the weight to be given to their

                                                 -7-
testimony, and has discretion to accept or reject any of the witness’ testimony.” Street v. Street,

25 Va. App. 380, 387 (1997) (en banc)). “This Court is bound by the credibility findings of the

circuit court.” Tackett v. Arlington Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 62 Va. App. 296, 339 (2013).

       Consequently, credible evidence supports the finding that the child was “without parental

care or guardianship caused by the unreasonable absence . . . of the child’s . . . guardian” and

was at “substantial risk” of physical injury or death when he was found wandering unattended—

on two separate occasions—on a four-lane highway. See Code § 16.1-228(1), (5). Of particular

concern was the grandparents’ lack of supervision, especially considering the child’s young age,

his autism diagnosis, and his proclivity for wandering. “When the trial court acts as a factfinder,

as it did in this case, it retains ‘broad discretion in making the decisions necessary to guard and

to foster a child’s best interests.’” Farrell v. Warren Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 59 Va. App.

375, 421 (2012) (quoting Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 328 (1990)). Considering the totality

of the evidence, the circuit court did not err in entering the child protective order against the

grandparents and in finding that the child was abused or neglected.

                                          CONCLUSION

       For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the Circuit Court of Carroll

County.

                                                                                            Affirmed.

                                                 -8-