Court Opinion

ID: 9897784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:25:05.514651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:02.312284
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

              Present: Judges O’Brien, Ortiz and Senior Judge Haley
UNPUBLISHED

              TESHA CAMELLE JOYCE
                                                                               MEMORANDUM OPINION*
              v.      Record No. 1545-22-3                                          PER CURIAM
                                                                                 SEPTEMBER 19, 2023
              ROANOKE CITY DEPARTMENT
               OF SOCIAL SERVICES

                                 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
                                               David B. Carson, Judge

                               (John S. Koehler; The Law Office of James Steele, PLLC, on brief),
                               for appellant.

                               (Timothy R. Spencer, City Attorney; Jennifer L. Crook, Assistant
                               City Attorney; L. Brad Braford, Guardian ad litem for the minor
                               child, on brief), for appellee.

                      Tesha Camelle Joyce (mother) appeals the circuit court’s removal, adjudicatory, and

              dispositional orders finding that her daughter, C.J., was abused or neglected, removing C.J. from her

              care, and transferring C.J.’s custody to the Roanoke City Department of Social Services (the

              Department). Mother argues that C.J. was not subject to an imminent threat to life or health to the

              extent that severe or irremediable injury would be likely to result if C.J. were returned to her. After

              examining the briefs and record in this case, the panel unanimously holds that oral argument is

              unnecessary because “the appeal is wholly without merit.” Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a).

              For the following reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.

                      *
                          This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
                                        BACKGROUND1

        On appeal, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, in

this case, the Department, and grant to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible from the

evidence.” King v. King George Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 69 Va. App. 206, 210 (2018) (quoting

C. Farrell v. Warren Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 59 Va. App. 375, 420-21 (2012)).

        On August 8, 2021, while mother was in North Carolina, her daughter, C.J., suffered a

head injury while staying with her maternal grandmother. C.J. was hit in the forehead with a

crowbar after a physical altercation between C.J.’s adult brother and her uncle. Mother was

uncooperative with the Roanoke City Department of Social Services (the Department) and had

significant CPS history, so the investigator took custody of C.J. when no other family members

were identified to care for her. The Roanoke City Juvenile and Domestic Relations District

Court (the JDR court) entered an emergency removal order on August 9, 2021. On August 12,

2021, the JDR court entered a preliminary removal order and scheduled the matter for an

adjudicatory hearing.

        On August 27, 2021, Bridgette Joyce, C.J.’s maternal aunt, petitioned the JDR court for

custody of C.J. On September 8, 2021, the JDR court found that C.J. was abused or neglected.

At the dispositional hearing on October 5, 2021, the JDR court transferred custody of C.J. to

Bridgette and approved the foster care plan with the goal of relative placement. The JDR court

allowed visitation between C.J. and mother at Bridgette’s discretion. The following day, mother

filed a petition for custody.

        1
         The record in this case was sealed. Nevertheless, the appeal necessitates unsealing
relevant portions of the record to resolve the issues mother has 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-
         On October 8, 2021, mother took C.J. without Bridgette’s permission and refused to

return her. The Department attempted to contact mother by phone and in person at mother’s

home several times between October and December 2021, but mother was not responsive. On

December 8, 2021, mother appeared before the JDR court on her custody petition but refused to

state where C.J. was. The JDR court held her in contempt and sentenced her to ten days in jail;

she was able to purge her contempt if she provided C.J.’s whereabouts. C.J. was brought to the

courthouse, and the Department unsuccessfully attempted to contact Bridgette.

         On December 14, 2021, Bridgette was unwilling to continue caring for C.J. because she

felt unsafe after mother took C.J. in October without permission. Accordingly, the JDR court

entered another preliminary removal order and awarded custody of C.J. to the Department.

Mother filed a motion to amend or review that order, asking that the JDR court give her custody

of C.J. The court denied mother’s motion. On February 4, 2022, the JDR court transferred

custody of C.J. to the Department and approved the foster care plan. Mother appealed the JDR

court’s custody determination, abuse or neglect finding, and dispositional order to the circuit

court.

         At a July 8, 2022 hearing before the circuit court, C.J.’s early childhood special education

teacher testified that while attendance was not compulsory because of C.J.’s age, C.J. attended only

69 days of school out of 170 during the 2020-2021 school year. C.J. also did not attend virtual

school sessions. As a result of the absences, C.J. did not receive early intervention speech services

or have the opportunity to learn other skills important for her eventual enrollment in kindergarten.

C.J. also missed multiple child development center, pediatric gastrointestinal clinic, pediatric

surgery clinic, and neurology clinic appointments.

         Mother testified that when she was on her way to the hospital for C.J. on August 8, 2021,

she had communication difficulties with the Department because her calls were dropping. Mother

                                                  -3-
claimed that she sought early intervention services for C.J. at the child development center and took

C.J. for all her medical appointments. However, mother acknowledged missing some appointments.

Mother stated that she decided to homeschool C.J. because of the COVID-19 pandemic and

communicated that to C.J.’s teacher.

        Mother testified that on October 7 or 8, 2021, Bridgette asked her to come over to style

C.J.’s hair. Mother stated that when she arrived, her brother was there and C.J. was scared; mother

asked Bridgette to take C.J. home for the weekend, and Bridgette agreed. Mother testified that she

was never asked to return C.J. to Bridgette. Mother attempted to enroll C.J. in school several times

but could not because she did not have custody of her. Mother testified that Bridgette never

attempted to contact her to get C.J. back and that Bridgette told mother that she had a lot going on,

to keep C.J., and pray that the Department did not find out mother had C.J. Mother claimed that she

never knew she needed to return C.J. to Bridgette until she went to the JDR court in December.

Mother acknowledged that the Department had left a letter on her door but she did not call in

response because she was afraid.

        The circuit court found that C.J. was abused or neglected in mother’s care, approved the

Department’s foster care plan with the goal of return to home, granted custody of C.J. to the

Department, and denied mother’s request for custody. The court found that mother was not a

credible witness. On appeal, mother argues that the court erred when it found that C.J. was subject

to an imminent threat to life or health to the extent that severe or irremediable injury would be likely

to result if C.J. were returned to her care.

                                               ANALYSIS

        “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)

                                                 -4-
(alteration in original) (quoting Logan v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Dev., 13 Va. App. 123,

128 (1991)). “Where, as here, the court hears the evidence ore tenus, its finding is entitled to

great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to

support it.” Fauquier Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Ridgeway, 59 Va. App. 185, 190 (2011)

(quoting Martin v. Pittsylvania Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20 (1986)).

        Courts have the authority to remove a child from a parent’s custody when the child is

alleged to have been abused or neglected. Code §§ 16.1-251 (emergency removal orders), -252

(preliminary removal orders). “[T]he Code contemplates intervention . . . where ‘the child would

be subject to an imminent threat to life or health to the extent that severe or irreversible injury

would be likely to result if the child were returned to or left in the custody of his parent . . . .’”

D. Farrell v. Warren Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 59 Va. App. 342, 364 (2012) (quoting Jenkins v.

Winchester Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 12 Va. App. 1178, 1183 (1991)). The Department must also prove

that it made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the child. Code

§§ 16.1-251(A)(2), -252(E)(2).

        Code § 16.1-228(1) defines an abused or neglected child as any child: “[w]hose parents . . .

create[] or inflict[], threaten[] to create or inflict, or allow[] to be created or inflicted upon such child

a physical or mental injury other than by accidental means, or create[] a substantial risk of death,

disfigurement or impairment of bodily or mental functions.” “[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.” D. Farrell, 59 Va. App. at 364 (quoting Jenkins, 12 Va. App. at 1183).

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 record supports the court’s finding that C.J. was abused or neglected. After the

September 2021 abuse and neglect finding, the JDR court transferred custody to Bridgette, with

                                                    -5-
visitation between C.J. and mother at Bridgette’s discretion. Mother was aware that she did not

have custody of C.J. because she filed a petition for custody the day after the hearing. Despite the

knowledge that she did not have custody of C.J. and could only visit with Bridgette’s permission,

mother took C.J. two days after filing her petition.

        The Department attempted contact with mother several times, but mother kept C.J. from

Bridgette and the Department for over two months. Mother only revealed C.J.’s location after

the JDR court held her in contempt and she was arrested. During the time that C.J. was with

mother, C.J. missed significant developmental opportunities and services at school and several

medical appointments. Indeed, it is reasonable to infer that mother was aware of her wrongdoing

as she testified that Bridgette told her to “pray that the Department did not find out” mother had

C.J. and that she was afraid to speak with the Department after finding the letter on her door.

        Once mother returned C.J., the Department made reasonable efforts to prevent C.J.’s

removal. The Department attempted to contact Bridgette, but she did not return any calls to the

Department. With no other family placement available for C.J., the Department had no less

restrictive option than placing C.J. in foster care. Indeed, over a week after C.J.’s return, once

the Department made contact, Bridgette informed the Department that she was unwilling to

continue caring for C.J. because she felt unsafe as a result of mother’s actions.

        Finally, although mother testified that she had Bridgette’s permission to keep C.J., the

court found that mother was wholly not credible. The “credibility of the witnesses and the

weight accorded the evidence are matters solely for the fact finder who has the opportunity to see

and hear the evidence as it is presented.” Simms v. Alexandria Dep’t of Cmty. & Hum. Servs., 74

Va. App. 447, 470 (2022) (quoting Harvey v. Flockhart, 65 Va. App. 131, 146 (2015)). “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).

                                                 -6-
                                 CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s judgment is affirmed.

                                                                       Affirmed.

                                       -7-