Ricardo Esteban Astudillo v. Fairfax County Department of Family Services

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Alston, Decker and Senior Judge Coleman
RICARDO ESTEBAN ASTUDILLO
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 0106-14-4 	PER CURIAM
JULY 15, 2014
FAIRFAX COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF FAMILY SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Michael F. Devine, Judge
(Chanel M. Jackson; Lavonda N. Graham-Williams, on brief), for
appellant.
(David P. Bobzien, County Attorney; Peter D. Andreoli, Jr., Deputy
County Attorney; Donna R. Banks, Assistant County Attorney;
Darlene R. Langley, Guardian ad litem for the infant child;
Langley & Langley, PC, on brief), for appellee.
Ricardo Esteban Astudillo appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to
his child pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B)(1), 16.1-283(B)(2)(a), 16.1-283(B)(2)(c), 16.1-283(C)(2),
and 16.1-283(E)(i). Astudillo argues the trial court erred because he complied with the services
offered by Fairfax County Department of Family Services as best as he could and there was no
evidence of continuing domestic violence. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we
conclude this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial
court. See Rule 5A:27.
Astudillo does not challenge the trial court’s decision to terminate his rights pursuant to
Code § 16.1-283(E)(i). This finding was supported by the evidence that Astudillo’s parental rights
to his other child were terminated in 2012. Because Astudillo does not challenge the trial court’s
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
UNPUBLISHED

- 2 -
decision to terminate his residual parental rights under subsection (E), the issue of whether
termination was warranted pursuant to subsections (B) and (C) is rendered moot. See Fields v.
Dinwiddie Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 8, 614 S.E.2d 656, 659 (2005) (termination of
parental rights upheld under one subsection of Code § 16.1-283 forecloses need to consider
termination under alternative subsections).
The trial court’s decision is summarily affirmed. See Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.