COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

ROMINGER LEGAL

Virginia Legal Research & Resources - VA Legal Resources

Need Legal Help?

LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER

LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS

NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Courts of Virginia. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Willis, Frank and Clements

MARVIN LEE CARMON
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 0036-01-2 PER CURIAM
MAY 8, 2001
RICHMOND DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Randall G. Johnson, Judge

(Richard G. White, Jr., on brief), for appellant.

(Evelyn B. Meese, Assistant City Attorney; Scott D.
Cardani, guardian ad litem for the infant child, on
brief), for appellee.

Marvin Lee Carmon (father) appeals the decision of the
circuit court terminating his residual parental rights in his son,
Daizhon Carmon. On appeal, father contends that the trial court
erred in finding that the Richmond Department of Social Services
(Department) investigated all reasonable options for placing
Daizhon with an immediate relative prior to terminating his
parental rights. Father asks that the judgment of the trial court
be reversed and his parental rights restored. 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.
On appeal, we view the evidence and all the reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to appellee as the party
prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App. 248, 250,
391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990).
Background
Daizhon was placed in foster care in March 1996 when he was
ten months old. Since that time he has resided with his
prospective adoptive parents. Daizhon was born four months
premature and spent ten months in the hospital. He continues to
have serious medical conditions requiring specialized equipment
and care. While Daizhon was hospitalized, his foster parents
learned the skills necessary to operate the equipment and provide
sufficient care. Father testified that during Daizhon's stay in
the hospital he visited the child once and admitted that he did
not acquire the skills necessary to care for Daizhon. Yolanda
Guthrie, a hospital social worker, testified that she alerted
father to the fact that she had contacted Child Protective
Services and that she expected Daizhon to go into foster care.
Father admitted that he had not provided hospital personnel
with the names of relatives who could provide care for Daizhon at
the time he visited the child. Father was incarcerated in
December 1996, and is serving a fifty-seven year sentence. Early
in his incarceration, father spoke with his mother once about her
caring for Daizhon. Later, through counsel, father provided the
Department with the names of four relatives (two aunts, an uncle,
and his mother), as potential relative placements. The Department
was unable to locate either aunt. Father's uncle has disabilities
of his own and was unable to consider caring for Daizhon.
Father's mother is raising two of her grandchildren and stated
that she was unwilling to raise another.
The Department filed a petition to terminate father's
residual parental rights, alleging that he had failed to maintain
continuing contact with Daizhon and that he had been unwilling or
unable to substantially remedy the conditions which led to Daizhon
being placed in foster care. Code 16.1-283(C). After the
juvenile and domestic relations district court heard the case,
father appealed to the circuit court. On November 14, 2000, the
circuit court entered an order terminating father's residual
parental rights.
ANALYSIS
"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." 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).
Father contends the trial court erred by finding that the
Department satisfied its duty to explore potential relative
placements for Daizhon prior to terminating his residual
parental rights.
Code 16.1-283(A) provides, in pertinent part, that before
terminating parental rights, "the court shall give a
consideration to granting custody to relatives of the child,
including grandparents." "Before termination of parental rights
by the court, the agency seeking termination has an affirmative
duty to investigate all reasonable options for placement with
immediate relatives." Sauer v. Franklin County Dep't of Soc.
Servs., 18 Va. App. 769, 771, 446 S.E.2d 640, 641 (1994).
However, the Department does not have a duty "to investigate the
home of every relative of the children, however remote, as a
potential placement." Id. The Department investigated several
of father's relatives, all of whom were either unable or
unwilling to serve as custodian of Daizhon. Additionally, the
Department found that the maternal relatives identified by
Daizhon's mother were similarly unsuitable.
The record supports the trial court's finding that the
Department investigated all reasonable options for placing
Daizhon with a relative. Accordingly, the decision of the
circuit court is summarily affirmed.
Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated
for publication.

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Virginia Legal Research & Resources - VA Legal Resources
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE