Teresa Lewis v Fredericksburg Dept. of Social Svs

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Bray, Annunziata and Frank
TERESA LEWIS
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 1121-99-2 	PER CURIAM
NOVEMBER 30, 1999
FREDERICKSBURG DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG
John W. Scott, Jr., Judge
(John C. Harris; J. C. Harris Law Office, on
brief), for appellant.
(Timothy W. Barbrow; Joseph A. Vance, IV;
Joseph A. Vance, IV & Associates, on brief),
for appellee.
Teresa Lewis (Lewis) appeals the decision of the circuit
court terminating her parental rights to her three children,
Antonio Lewis, Shakela Lewis, and Ervin Lewis. 	Lewis contends
that the Fredericksburg Department of Social Services (DSS) failed
to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Lewis is not
reasonably likely to correct or eliminate the conditions that
resulted in the abuse of her children so as to allow their safe
return to her. 	Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the
parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court.
See Rule 5A:27.
"The preservation of the family, and in particular the
parent-child relationship, is an important goal for not only the
parents but also government itself." 	Weaver v. Roanoke Dep't of
Human Resources, 220 Va. 921, 926, 265 S.E.2d 692, 695 (1980).
"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 Dev., 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." 	Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 328,
387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990). 	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 best interests." 	Id. at 329, 387 S.E.2d at 796. 	We
view the decision in the light most favorable to DSS as the
party prevailing below, and its evidence is afforded all
reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. 	See Logan, 13
Va. App. at 128, 409 S.E.2d at 463. 	The trial court's judgment,
"when based on evidence heard ore tenus, will not be disturbed
- 2 -

on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support
it." 	Id. (citation omitted).
The children were removed from Lewis' custody in September
1996, after the behavior of the youngest child raised concerns
that he had been sexually abused. 	Further investigation
demonstrated that both Ervin and Shakela showed physical,
emotional, and behavioral indications of long term sexual abuse.
Lewis' brother and his girlfriend lived with the family at the
time the children were removed, and some evidence indicated that
the brother sexually abused the children. 	However, the
perpetrator was never identified. 	Evidence also established
that the brother was physically abusive to Antonio. 	All three
children were found to be neglected and abused, as they were
also subjected to physical abuse and neglect. 	The finding of
abuse suffered by the children was not contested.
Under Code § 16.1-283(B), the parental rights of parents of
abused children may be terminated if the court finds by clear
and convincing evidence that it is in the best interests of the
children and that:
1. 	The neglect or abuse suffered by such
[children] presented a serious and
substantial threat to [their] life, health
or development; and
2. 	It is not reasonably likely that the
conditions which resulted in such neglect or
abuse can be substantially corrected or
eliminated so as to allow the [children's]
safe return to [their] parent or parents
- 3 -

within a reasonable period of time. 	In
making this determination, the court shall
take into consideration the efforts made to
rehabilitate the parent or parents by any
public or private social, medical, mental
health or other rehabilitative agencies
prior to the [children's] initial placement
in foster care.
Code § 16.1-283(B)(1) and (2). 	Proof that "[t]he parent or
parents, without good cause, have not responded to or followed
through with appropriate, available and reasonable
rehabilitative efforts on the part of social, medical, mental
health or other rehabilitative agencies designed to reduce,
eliminate or prevent the neglect or abuse" is prima facie
evidence of the conditions set out in Code § 16.1-283(B)(2).
The record demonstrates that the children had special needs
due to their history of abuse. 	They required a highly
structured environment and cooperation among their counselors,
caregivers, and teachers. 	Their counselor, Mary Elizabeth
McGhee, testified that she was concerned for their welfare if
they were in an environment of inadequate supervision or
structure.
The goal of the initial foster care plan was to return the
children to the parents. 	Under that plan, Lewis was required to
take several classes, including one focusing on parenting skills
and one on the traumatic effects of sexual abuse on children; to
undergo a psychological evaluation and individual counseling; to
- 4 -

obtain full-time employment; and to locate and maintain
independent housing, particularly ensuring the children's safety
by removing other adults from the home.
Georgette Cromartie was a parent education coordinator who
taught the parenting skills class that Lewis took. 	Cromartie
expressed concern that Lewis failed to implement the information
she received in the classes. 	Lewis also failed to recognize her
need to adequately supervise and protect the children.
Cromartie expressed particular concern that Timothy Baker, the
children's father, and Lewis continued to live with other
adults, including people whom they did not know. 	She testified
also that the children had heightened needs because of their
abuse and required a greater amount of supervision. 	It was
crucial that the children have a safe and stable environment.
Dr. Susan Rosebro conducted two parent competency
evaluations of Lewis, one in March 1998 and one in September
1998. 	The re-evaluation was done after Lewis completed both the
parenting and the sexual abuse classes and participated in
individual counseling. 	Rosebro noted that, despite the
instruction Lewis had received, she failed to respond
appropriately when asked what behavior might indicate a child
was sexually abused. 	Rosebro also observed that, when Lewis
discussed with the children the sexual abuse that had occurred,
Lewis minimized what had occurred, rephrased the children's
- 5 -

complaint, and failed to acknowledge any responsibility for not
protecting the children. 	Rosebro subsequently discussed with
Lewis the significance of what the children had reported, and
urged Lewis to call her DSS social worker immediately. 	Lewis
expressed no urgency to speak with her social worker, and, in
fact, failed to call or appear at her appointment the following
week. 	Rosebro also noted that, while Lewis played well with the
children, she failed to set limits on their behavior. 	Rosebro
also met with the children, who expressed concern about Lewis'
ability to protect them.
The goal of the foster care plan was changed to adoption in
February 1998. 	Baker and Lewis were evicted in September 1998
for nonpayment of rent. 	At the time they were evicted, they
were residing with people they did not know. 	By the February
1999 hearing, Lewis testified that she and Baker rented a
bedroom in the house of an older woman and her
thirty-nine-year-old godson. 	Lewis admitted she did not know
the godson. 	Lewis testified that she would find a new place to
live with her children if they were returned to her custody.
Lewis participated in the classes and counseling required
under the foster care plans. 	Despite receiving training and
counseling, however, Lewis failed to respond in a meaningful way
to the underlying problem of the children's sexual abuse or to
implement the training she received so as to ensure the safety
- 6 -

of her children if they were returned to her custody.
Therefore, evidence in the record supports the finding of the
trial court that DSS proved by clear and convincing evidence
that it was not reasonably likely that the conditions which
resulted in the children's neglect and abuse were substantially
corrected or eliminated so as to allow their safe return to
Lewis' custody.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 7 -