Misty Gibson v. Roanoke City Department of Social Services

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Elder, Beales and Senior Judge Annunziata
MISTY GIBSON
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 0014-09-3 	PER CURIAM
MAY 26, 2009
ROANOKE CITY DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
William D. Broadhurst, Judge
(Thomas E. Wray, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on
brief.
(William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Heather P. Ferguson,
Assistant City Attorney, on brief), for appellee. Appellee
submitting on brief.
(Marta J. Anderson, on brief), Guardian ad litem for the minor child.
Guardian ad litem submitting on brief.
Misty Gibson (mother) appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her
son, N.B., under Code § 16.1-283(C)(1), (C)(2) and (E). On appeal, mother challenges the proof
of conditions necessary for termination pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) and (C)(2), and does
not challenge the proof of conditions necessary for termination under Code § 16.1-283(E). For
the following reason, we affirm the trial court’s decision.
In Fields v. Dinwiddie County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 3, 614 S.E.2d 656,
657 (2005), a parent appealed to this Court from the trial court’s decision to terminate her
parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2) and Code § 16.1-283(E)(i). On appeal, she
contended the evidence did not support the termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2), but she did
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

- 2 -
not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the termination pursuant to Code
§ 16.1-283(E)(i). This Court found that, in light of the unchallenged termination pursuant to
Code § 16.1-283(E)(i), it was not required to consider the sufficiency of the evidence to support
the termination under Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). Fields, 46 Va. App. at 8, 614 S.E.2d at 659.
Here, likewise, mother does not challenge the termination pursuant to Code
§ 16.1-283(E). Accordingly, we need not consider mother’s challenge to the termination under
Code § 16.1-283(C)(1) and (C)(2).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision.
Affirmed.