Parent and child – Record supported decision to terminate father’s parental rights

Where a father failed to complete services provided by the Hampton Department of Social Services, never provided proof of a stable income sufficient to support the children’s needs, missed meetings and maintained minimal contact with the Department, the circuit court did not err in terminating his parental rights, which was in his children’s best interests.

Background

Curtis Daniels appeals the circuit court’s orders terminating his parental rights. He contends that the evidence did not support termination and that the circuit court erred in declining his request for more time to remedy the conditions resulting in foster care.

Analysis

The record supports the circuit court’s termination of father’s parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). Father admitted that he failed to complete the services provided by the Hampton Department of Social Services. He claimed he could not complete any of the services because the Department had “too many requests” and he “could not find time” due to his work schedule. But father failed to participate in any of the requested services even after he left that job and was unemployed. The Department “is not required to force its services upon an unwilling or disinterested parent.”

Moreover, father never provided proof of a stable income sufficient to support the children’s needs. Father claimed he obtained his own housing six months before the circuit court hearing, but he failed to update the Department so it could confirm the residence met the children’s needs.

From the beginning of the foster care case, father missed meetings and maintained minimal contact with the Department. He did not even return a phone call from a service provider to attempt to schedule services. And father ceased all contact with the Department entirely after September 2024—nearly seven months before the circuit court hearing. Father admitted that he never gave the Department his new phone number. Father’s lack of communication with the Department demonstrated his unwillingness to cooperate with its efforts to help him gain custody of his children.

Father also contends that the circuit court should have given him more time to participate in services and demonstrate his ability to remedy the conditions that required the children’s placement in foster care. But Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) contains a “twelve-month time limit . . . designed to prevent an indeterminate state of foster care ‘drift’ and to encourage timeliness by the courts and social services in addressing the circumstances that resulted in the foster care placement.”

Father made no effort with the Department towards gaining custody until January 2024—nearly four months after the children entered foster care. The Department tried to provide services to father, but he refused to participate. Father then ceased contact with the Department after September 2024, causing a nearly seven-month interruption in communication. By the time of the circuit court hearing, the children had been in foster care for approximately 19 months. Given the evidence in the record, the circuit court’s decision to decline father’s request for more time to participate in services was not plainly wrong.

Father also asserts that the circuit court erred in terminating his parental rights because the Department failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children’s best interests. The court disagrees. During the 19 months the children were in foster care, their foster family provided the support necessary to support their needs.

Father concedes that he requires “extra time and assistance” before he will be able to care for the children. But “it is in the best interests of children to receive a permanent placement without languishing in the foster system.” “It is clearly not in the best interests of a child to spend a lengthy period of time waiting to find out when, or even if, a parent will be capable of resuming his responsibilities.” Thus, the record supports the circuit court’s finding that the termination of father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests.

Affirmed.

Daniels v. City of Hampton Department of Social Services, Record No. 0734-25-1, July 14, 2026. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Chaney). From the Circuit Court of the City of Hampton (Gaten). Charles E. Haden for appellant. (L. Olivia Alexander, Assistant City Attorney III; Anne V. Ligon, Assistant City Attorney II; A. Michele Cavanaugh, Guardian ad litem for the minor children; Cavanaugh Law, PC, on brief), for appellee. VLW 026-7-296. 10 pp.

Full-Text Opinion