Ventura v. Winchester Dep't of Soc. Servs.

1

ALEXANDRA ARAMBULO VENTURA v. WINCHESTER DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

No. 1221-21-4

Court of Appeals of Virginia

October 18, 2022

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WINCHESTER William W Eldridge, IV, Judge

(Jason E. Ransom; Ransom/Silvester, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief.

(Beth M. Coyne; Sarah Orris, Guardian ad litem for the minor children; Winchester Law Group, P.C.; Orris Law Firm, on brief), for appellee. Appellee and Guardian ad litem submitting on brief.

Present: Judges Huff, Raphael and Lorish

MEMORANDUM OPINION ^[*]

PER CURIAM

Alexandra Ventura (mother) appeals the circuit court's orders terminating her parental rights to her six children and approving the foster care goal of adoption. Mother argues that the evidence was insufficient to terminate her parental rights under Code §§ 16.1-283(B) and (C)(2). After examining the briefs and record, we affirm the decision of the circuit court.

BACKGROUND^[1]

"On appeal from the termination of parental rights, this Court is required to review the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing in the circuit court." Yafi v. Stafford Dep't of Soc. Servs., 69 Va.App. 539 550-51 (2018) (quoting Thach v. Arlington Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 63 Va.App. 157, 168 (2014)). Here, the Winchester Department of Social Services was the prevailing party.

Mother and Miguel Ventura (father) are the biological parents to the six children who are the subject of this appeal.^[2] In May 2020, mother gave birth to her youngest child. At that time, mother and the newborn both tested positive for cocaine and amphetamines.^[3] The Winchester Department of Social Services (the Department) interviewed mother, who denied using cocaine or knowing why she had tested positive for drugs. Mother claimed that she only used "non-prescribed" Adderall once the year before. The Department also interviewed father, the maternal grandmother and the children. Father stated that he and mother had been married since 2012. Father denied using drugs and claimed to know nothing about mother's drug use. The maternal grandmother also denied using drugs or knowing of mother's drug use. The Department requested drug screens for mother, father, the maternal grandmother, and the children. Everyone agreed that the infant would reside with the maternal grandmother pending the results of those drug screens and that mother would not reside in the home.

But the results of the drug screens revealed positive results for both parents, the maternal grandmother, and five of mother's six children. The infant tested positive for cocaine, amphetamines, and methamphetamines; four of the five older children tested positive for methamphetamine; father and the maternal grandmother tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines; and mother tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines. Despite the positive drug screens, mother continued to deny that she used drugs. After receiving the positive results, the Department removed all six children, who ranged in age from infant to nine years old, and placed them in foster care because there were no viable relative placement options.

The City of Winchester Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court entered emergency and preliminary removal orders. Later, the JDR court adjudicated that the children were abused or neglected and entered dispositional orders.^[4] Mother did not appeal the dispositional orders.

When the children entered foster care, the Department required mother to meet certain goals before reunification could be achieved. One such goal was that mother obtain and maintain safe and stable housing, free of violence, criminal activity, and drug use. The Department also required mother to complete a substance abuse assessment and follow all treatment recommendations. Mother also needed to comply with random drug screens. The Department also referred mother for a mental health assessment and directed her to comply with all recommendations. The Department was concerned about mother's parenting skills, so it also referred mother to parent mentoring and coaching, as well as family counseling. The Department offered supervised visitation to mother, conditioned on her remaining substance-free during the visit.

Although mother did not at first respond to calls to schedule the substance abuse and mental health assessments, she completed the evaluations in August 2020. The evaluator concluded that mother "would benefit from Substance Abuse Partial Hospitalization," so that she could participate in a psychiatric evaluation, trauma therapy, and drug screens. The evaluator also recommended that mother work with a parent mentor "to help support, mentor and educate [mother] on safe and positive parenting." Mother was admitted to the partial hospitalization program but was discharged from the program after missing eight group meetings. Despite being readmitted into the program after signing a "Corrective Action Plan" that explained the attendance policies, mother was again discharged after only a few days for violating the program's attendance policies. Mother attempted the program a third time but was discharged again for lack of attendance compliance.

The Department had also referred mother to family counseling with the same service provider of the partial hospitalization program, so mother's discharge from the program also led to the cancellation of her family counseling sessions. The Department referred mother to another provider for substance abuse and mental health treatment. While she met with the new provider, she never followed through with the recommendations.

While the children were in foster care, the Department requested that mother take around twenty random drug screens. Mother refused to participate in eight of these, and when she did submit a sample, she was positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine every time. Despite the positive drug screens, mother continually denied using drugs.

Mother also struggled to cooperate with her assigned parent mentor. Notwithstanding mother's stated understanding of the importance of the service, she often missed meetings and ultimately was discharged from the service in December 2020. While the Department offered mother a list of other providers, she failed to follow through with the services.

The Department had concerns about the safety of mother's home, yet mother and father continued to live in the four-bedroom house from which the Department removed the children. The Department provided mother with other housing options and referred her to several programs. Mother missed her appointments with the housing programs.

The Department offered weekly supervised visitation for mother and father. The initial visits were by video because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but by June 2020, the parents could visit the children in person. The Department reviewed the "COVID-19 Parent/Child Contact Visitation Guidelines" with them more than once, but they repeatedly failed to follow the rules. This led the Department to suspend one in-person visit, and other virtual visits took place because of COVID-19 exposures and illness. At the same time, the Department did observe "strong" bonds between mother and the children and mother's attention to their needs. When the Department continued to offer mother services, however, she did not participate.

The Department then petitioned to terminate mother's parental rights and recommended a foster care goal of adoption. On April 7, 2021, the JDR court terminated mother's parental rights and approved the foster care goal of adoption., and mother appealed to the circuit court.

In October 2021, the parties appeared before the circuit court. The Department argued for termination of mother's parental rights based on her failure to comply with the foster care plan's requirements and to show that she could parent the children safely. The Department presented evidence that mother had not completed substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, parent mentoring, and family counseling, and also that mother had continued to test positive for drugs while denying that she used drugs.

At the time of the circuit court hearing, the children had been in foster care for about seventeen months and were all living in the same foster home. The Department presented evidence that the children were "very attached" to their foster family. While two of the older children first struggled with adjusting to foster care, the older children's behaviors improved after participating in recommended therapy, and they learned to manage their emotions. Three of the younger children also required therapy; one to address attachment issues, one to address speech delay, and one to address "low muscle tone."

The three older children attended school in kindergarten, third grade, and fourth grade; the three younger children were in daycare. The kindergartener was "doing very, very well" and "very excited to attend school." The third grader was improving and "catching up" academically with the other students. The fourth grader also was improving and had an Individualized Education Plan for additional support in school. The older children also participated in sports and church activities.

Mother admitted to the circuit court that she had "messed up" by not regularly attending the substance abuse treatment and using drugs. Mother, however, claimed that she was no longer using illegal drugs because she was "trying to get everything together." Mother also acknowledged that she stopped attending therapy, even though it was recommended that she continue with it, and did not explain why she had missed some of her appointments with the parent mentor.

Mother testified that she had...