DeAngela Conner v Arlington County DSS

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton
DEANGELA CONNER MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 0460-98-4 	PER CURIAM
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
ARLINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
Benjamin N.A. Kendrick, Judge
(Denman A. Rucker; Rucker & Rucker, on
brief), for appellant.
(Mary E. Craig, Assistant County Attorney, on
brief), for appellee.
DeAngela Conner (mother) appeals the decision of the circuit
court terminating her residual parental rights to her son,
Derrick. 	The circuit court found that the Arlington County
Department of Social Services (DSS) presented clear and
convincing evidence sufficient under Code § 16.1-283(B) and (C)
to support its petition to terminate mother's parental rights.
On appeal, mother contends that the trial court erred in finding
the evidence sufficient under the statute because the child did
not face a serious and substantial threat to his life, health,
and development; he could be safely returned to mother within a
reasonable period of time; and mother was willing and able to
remedy the conditions which led to the child's foster care
*Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.

- 2 -
placement. 	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.
"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(B) provides that the residual parental
rights of a parent of a child found by the court to be neglected
or abused may be terminated if the court finds that it is in the
child's best interests, that the neglect or abuse presents a
serious and substantial threat to the child's life, health or

- 3 -
development, and that it is not reasonably likely that the
conditions resulting in the neglect or abuse can be substantially
corrected or eliminated to allow the child's safe return within a
reasonable period of time. 	See Code § 16.1-283(B)(1) and (2).
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.
Code § 16.1-283(C)(2).
The child was placed in foster care as a result of mother's
arrest for shoplifting. 	The child was with mother at the time of
her arrest. 	At the time Derrick came into foster care, he could
not read, write, or recognize numbers, although he was eight
years old; he used an alias and was trained to lie and steal by
mother; and he suffered from personality and emotional problems.
He was emotionally detached, and lacked a sense of stability.
Prior to the time the child was placed in foster care, he and
mother did not have stable housing. 	They sometimes stayed in
hotels, where the child was locked in the bathroom as mother
"dated" men for money. 	The child also reported to his social

- 4 -
worker that they slept under bushes.
The evidence also demonstrated that mother did not cooperate
with therapy for herself or work with the counselors and school
personnel seeking to provide assistance to her child. 	Mother
visited the child, but failed to use the visits to interact
positively with the child. 	Mother examined the child looking for
rashes and injuries, then argued with the supervising social
workers. 	Mother often complained that she had other things to do
during visitation or got angry and left early. 	After visits with
mother, the child's negative behaviors, such as stealing and
lying, would increase. 	Mother failed to attend family counseling
sessions. 	She was combative with DSS personnel and failed to
demonstrate an understanding of her son's needs.
The trial court found that the child was neglected and
abused; that the neglect and abuse presented a serious and
substantial threat to his life, health and development; that it
was not reasonably likely that the conditions which resulted in
the neglect and abuse could be substantially corrected within a
reasonable period of time, despite the reasonable and appropriate
efforts of DSS; and that it was in the best interests of the
child to terminate mother's parental rights.
Credible evidence supported the trial court's determination
that the child was neglected and abused. 	While in mother's care,
the child learned to steal and lie. 	He was educationally delayed
and emotionally disturbed. 	The family lacked a stable residence.

- 5 -
Credible evidence also supported the trial court's finding that
the underlying conditions could not be corrected within a
reasonable period of time. 	Over the course of three years,
mother failed to work with those seeking to assist the child.
She did not, or could not, place his needs above her own anger
and resentment towards DSS. 	She delayed signing his
instructional plan and minimized his educational and emotional
problems. 	She criticized his foster home, insinuating that he
was not being cared for properly. 	Mother failed to appreciate
the seriousness of his problems with stealing and lying and
repeatedly modeled these same behaviors before the child.
Finally, DSS presented clear and convincing evidence that it was
in the best interests of the child to terminate mother's parental
rights. 	While there was some evidence that any termination
causes difficulty for a child, the specific evidence also
demonstrated that the child was cared for properly while in
foster care, that his needs were being addressed, and that his
behavior was improving.
Therefore, the trial court's determination that DSS met the
statutory requirements of Code § 16.1-283 to terminate mother's
parental rights was not plainly wrong or lacking in evidence to
support it. 	Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is
summarily affirmed.
Affirmed.