CAV: Placement with extended family not required

Termination of parental rights was not plainly wrong, despite the mother’s contention that the Department should have further investigated potential placement of her children with extended family members.

Background

Following an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court terminated the residual parental rights of Appellant Carolyn Lane-Alvis for two of her three children. At the hearing, Charity Stutzman, a child protective services worker with the Richmond Department of Social Services, testified regarding the documented history of Lane-Alvis’s physical neglect of her minor children. Foster care social worker Ebony Malone also testified regarding services that the Department provided to Lane-Alvis in order to try to help her reunite with her children, or to try to place the children with relatives in the meantime. Finally, Dr. Craig King testified regarding Lane-Alvis’s psychological evaluation and his conclusions that she lacked the ability to adequately parent the two children whose care was at issue. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court terminated Lane-Alvis’s residual parental rights for both children. Lane-Alvis appealed, assigning numerous errors from the proceedings below.

Records custodian

The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in accepting Stutzman as a custodian of the record based on her level of access to the Department’s records. Stutzman testified that she had access to records that other users did not possess, she could create her own records, and she could review records made by other users. The foundation required to admit a business record, such as the Department’s record in this case, can be proved through witness testimony. The circuit court did not err in admitting the records, given Stutzman’s familiarity with and access to them.

Return efforts

The evidence showed that Lane-Alvis received numerous rehabilitative services, including mental health treatment, referrals to parenting classes and substance-abuse assessment, and two safety plans. These constituted reasonable efforts to address the many issues that Lane-Alvis faced. The circuit court also considered evidence that Lane-Alvis used drugs while her children were in foster care and while she was pregnant. Therefore, the circuit court was not plainly wrong in finding that the Department made reasonable efforts to rehabilitate Lane-Alvis prior to terminating her residual parental rights.

Placement with relatives

Lane-Alvis argues that the Department failed to investigate three of her relatives as placement options for her children: Brandon Lane, Robin Schwartz, and Will Schwartz. Lane was re-incarcerated while this matter was in the J&DR court, though Lane-Alvis argues that no evidence showed he was not an appropriate placement upon his release. The Schwartzes evinced no desire to be considered as a potential placement for the children.

Lane-Alvis’s argument relies on Sauer v. Franklin Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 18 Va. App. 769 (1994), but the facts of the present case are distinguishable. Unlike in Sauer, the Schwartzes are the children’s great-aunt and -uncle, not grandparents or immediate family members. They never became engaged at all in the placement process or in any planning for the children’s future, despite a social worker’s numerous attempts to contact them. Lane-Alvis also concedes that no binding precedent required the Department to complete a home visit with the Schwartzes, especially as they had shown no interest in accommodating one.

In short, the court cannot say that the Department was reasonably required to consider one of these family members as a placement option or that the circuit court was plainly wrong in finding that the Department made reasonable efforts to investigate Lane-Alvis’s relatives as placement options.

Motion to strike

The circuit court had sufficient credible evidence to deny Lane-Alvis’s motion to strike. King’s testimony and report indicated that Lane-Alvis’s mental health-related problems and intellectual disability make it very difficult for her to meet her own needs, let alone adequately attend to her children’s special needs. In addition, Stutzman’s testimony and affidavit established that Lane-Alvis had a history of physical neglect of her children, that the children’s environment and Lane-Alvis’s actions presented serious and substantial threats to the children, and that these conditions could not reasonably be corrected or eliminated so as to allow the children’s safe return within a reasonable period of time. Likewise, Malone’s testimony showed that Lane-Alvis was unwilling or unable to substantially remedy the conditions that led to or required continuation of foster care.

Conclusion

In summary, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence over Lane-Alvis’s objections, because that evidence was an admissible business record. There was also credible evidence before the circuit court that the Department made reasonable efforts to provide services to Lane-Alvis and to investigate her relatives as potential placement options. Furthermore, the Department did not unlawfully transfer its mandate to provide services to Lane-Alvis to a third party, as Code § 16.1-283 permits the use of private service providers for certain functions, including addressing a parent’s mental health problems. Finally, the circuit court did not err in denying Lane-Alvis’s motion to strike.

Affirmed.

Lane-Alvis v. Richmond Dep’t of Soc. Servs., Record No. 0609-17-2, Mar. 6, 2018. CAV (Beales), from Richmond Cir. Ct. (Hairston). Charles R. Samuels for Appellants; Matthew R. Morris for Appellee. VLW No. 018-7-050, 12 pp.