The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the trial court’s denial of the petition to terminate the parental rights of C.W.’s biological mother. The appellate court first held that under Virginia Code § 16.1–283(C), in order to terminate a parent’s rights DSS most prove both: 1) that termination is in the child’s best interest proved by clear and convincing evidence; and 2) that the parent has not maintained a relationship with the child or remedied the condition that led to foster care placement. Second, the appellate court found that under Crawley, even if a parent has not complied with the state statute timeline for compliance of a plan, it is not alone dispositive and DSS must prove that termination is in the child’s best interest separate and apart from the second prong. Richmond Dep’t of Soc. Servs. V. Crawley, 47 Va. App. 572, 579, 625 S.E.2d 670, 673 (2006). In this case, mother did not comply with the requirements of her case plan within 12 months, but the appellate court held that DSS could not argue that mother simply failed to meet requirements of VA Code § 16.1–283(C). Rather, the DSS must also prove that termination was in the best interests of C.W. Because DSS failed to prove both requirements by clear and convincing evidence, the court of appeals upheld the judgment. DSS also argued that 1) C.W.’s statutory right to expeditious review was violated because the trial court withheld judgment for an extended period of time and 2) that the trial court improperly distinguished C.W. from mother’s two older children for whom the trial court did terminate parental rights. The appellate court dismissed the time argument for mootness and rejected the second argument by reaffirming its prior holdings in Fauquier County Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Ridgeway, 59 Va. App. 185, 717 S.E.2d 811 (2011) and Norfolk Div. Soc. Servs. v. Hardy, 42 Va. App. 546, 593 S.E.2d 528 (2004) that the parent-child relationship is to be preserved whenever possible, even where the parent’s relationship with his or her other children must be terminated.
Cite: No. 0532-14-3, 2014 Va. App. LEXIS 365; 2014 WL 5529391 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2014)
Link to Full Opinion
Support Us