Inam v. Roanoke City Dep't of Soc. Servs.

1

JAKE WAJED INAM v. ROANOKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

No. 1379-22-3

Court of Appeals of Virginia

November 8, 2023

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. Appellant submitting on brief. ^[1]

(Timothy R. Spencer, City Attorney; Jennifer L. Crook Assistant City Attorney; Sarah Jane Newton, Guardian ad litem for the minor children, on brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on brief. ^[2]

Present: Judges Huff, Malveaux and Chaney

MEMORANDUM OPINION ^[*]

GLEN A. HUFF JUDGE

Jake Wajed Inam (father) appeals the circuit court's order terminating his parental rights to his children, H.W. and S.W. Father argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by not granting him a continuance after his subpoenaed witnesses failed to appear at trial. This Court finds no error and affirms the circuit court's judgment.

BACKGROUND^[3]

"On appeal, 'we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below, in this case the Department.'" Joyce v. Botetourt Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. 75 Va.App. 690, 695 (2022) (quoting C. Farrell v. Warren Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 59 Va.App. 375, 386 (2012)). Father is the biological parent of four children: W.W., Z.W., S.W., and H.W. Only father's two younger children, S.W. and H.W., are minors and the subject of this appeal.^[4]

On July 8, 2020, the Roanoke City Department of Social Services (the Department) received a report that father's oldest child, W.W., called the police after locking herself in the bathroom because father was following her around the house and cursing at her. Father had been drinking alcohol and "broke down" the bathroom door. After the incident, the Department interviewed father and the four children. Father claimed that he was "being harassed by an 'Anglo-Indian' organization" that was "broadcasting things from inside his house." To cope with "being harassed," father admitted to consuming alcohol daily. All four children confirmed that father was drinking to excess and claimed that he was "prone to outbursts of anger." The children reported that father's behavior had become "increasingly unstable." After being unable to find a viable relative placement, the Department sought to remove the children from father's care and place them in foster care. At the time of the removal, W.W. was 17 years old, Z.W. was 15 years old, S.W. was 12 years old, and H.W. was 9 years old.

The Roanoke City Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (the JDR court) entered emergency removal orders and preliminary removal orders for all four children. The JDR court subsequently adjudicated that the children were abused or neglected and entered dispositional orders.

After the children entered foster care, the Department established requirements father had to complete before he would be reunited with them. The Department required father to regularly attend visitations with the children, maintain contact with the Department, and comply with its recommendations. Father also had to obtain and maintain sobriety, complete a substance abuse assessment, attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings on a weekly basis, and participate in alcohol and drug screens. In addition, father had to participate in outpatient counseling and the Department referred father for a psychological and parental capacity evaluation.

Initially, the Department offered father weekly supervised visitation with the children. During those visits, father repeatedly discussed how there was "a group of people that were out to get him and his children." Father's paranoia upset the children. Beginning in June 2021, the Department and service providers noticed that "things started to take a [bad] turn" because the children were becoming "emotionally dysregulated" after the visits. For example, S.W. expressed not wanting to be alone with father because she did not "feel safe" in his presence.

Considering the children's reactions and their counselors' recommendations, the Department "paused" the in-person visitations and later moved to virtual visits. The Department also ensured that the children continued to receive individual counseling and referred the entire family to functional family therapy. The family participated in three functional family therapy sessions, but father only attended the first two sessions because of a schedule conflict. The sessions stopped because Z.W., who was 17 years old at the time, had "thoughts of self harm and suicidal thoughts."

In addition to visiting the children, father completed a psychological and parental capacity evaluation with Dr. Klaire Mundy in March 2021. Dr. Mundy reported that father presented "a pattern of . . . paranoid thought and conspiracy." Father told Dr. Mundy that there were people in the community who were spreading "a lot of lies" and "attempting to . . . brainwash him and his children." Considering father's paranoia and his tendency "to view himself as superior," Dr. Mundy doubted that he would change "his thought patterns" or be "psychologically and emotionally available" for his children. Father acknowledged a history of substance abuse, including alcohol, methamphetamine, cocaine, "and a couple of others," but claimed that he was sober. Dr. Mundy opined that father had stopped consuming alcohol "for the time being . . . as a means of complying with the rules that will allow him to regain custody of his children." Questioning whether father had used alcohol "as a means of self-medicating," Dr. Mundy recommended that father meet with a psychiatrist, who could determine whether medication would "get the derealization thoughts, the delusions, the paranoid thoughts back into some sort of . . . control." To best monitor father's "patterns of behavior" and substance use, Dr. Mundy also recommended weekly therapy.

After the evaluation, the Department referred father to a psychiatrist and recommended that he increase his outpatient counseling sessions. Father, however, continued to express concerns about "a community or a conspiracy or a network of individuals trying to influence him and his children." Despite the services, father's paranoia persisted, and he did not make any changes to remedy the conditions that led to, or required the continuation of, the children's placement in foster care. As a result, the JDR court terminated father's parental rights to S.W. and H.W. and approved the foster care goal of adoption. Father appealed the JDR court's rulings to the circuit court.

Before the circuit court trial, father requested four witness subpoenas; three of which were served only by posted service. The fourth subpoena was not served because the witness was no longer employed at the address listed on the subpoena. None of the witnesses appeared at trial. Father requested a continuance, which the circuit court took under advisement until after the Department presented its evidence.

The Department offered evidence about the children and their well-being. S.W. and H.W., who were 14 and 12 years old respectively, were not in the same foster home, but the Department had made efforts to keep them in contact with one another and their siblings. S.W.^[5] started counseling with the same therapist as their older sibling, Z.W., in September 2020. According to the therapist, both Z.W. and S.W. were "extremely fearful and concerned for [their] safety" because of father's drinking and "unstable behaviors," such as frequently yelling and screaming and slamming doors. The therapist had recommended "pausing" visitation with father because of the children's "increased emotional distress" following those visits.^[6] In January 2022, S.W. was hospitalized because of suicidal thoughts.^[7] Following their hospitalization, S.W. was placed in a new foster home, where they were "doing extremely well," according to the Department.

Like his siblings, H.W. participated in counseling, beginning in August 2020. H.W.'s therapist described him as "happy go lucky" at the outset, but H.W. also had expressed "sadness about missing his father," even though he "wouldn't show much affect." As counseling progressed, the therapist realized that H.W. did not understand the confidentiality of the sessions, but once he did, he "became much more vocal . . . and much more expressive."^[8] H.W. confessed having "some passive suicidal thoughts," but he did not have an intent or plan. H.W. became "increasingly upset" after visiting with father or talking with him on the phone.^[9] At the time of the circuit court hearing, the Department reported that H.W. was "doing wonderful[ly]" but "struggle[d] with anxiety."

The Department explained that it recommended terminating father's parental rights to S.W. and H.W. and a foster care goal of adoption because the children had been in foster care for approximately 25 months and father had not demonstrated that he had progressed as a result of the services offered. The Department emphasized that the children had experienced "significant trauma," which they were "working through," and "it would be detrimental to their progress" to return to father's care. According to the Department, as recently as a few weeks before the hearing, father continued to use "manipulative tactics when talking with his children or discussing concerning suspicions, which really upset his children."

At the close of the Department's evidence, father moved to strike, which the circuit court denied. Father then renewed his continuance request. Finding it important to move the case forward considering how long the children had been in foster care, and noting the Department's objection, the circuit...