Tulana Forte v. City of Hampton Department of Social Services

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Bumgardner, Kelsey and Senior Judge Overton
TULANA FORTE
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 1422-04-1 	PER CURIAM
DECEMBER 14, 2004
CITY OF HAMPTON DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON
Wilford Taylor, Jr., Judge
(Charles E. Haden, on brief), for appellant.
(Lesa J. Yeatts, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence A. Martin,
Guardian ad litem for the minor child; Coyle & Martin, on brief),
for appellee.
On June 14, 2004, the trial court entered an order terminating the parental rights of
Tulana Forte to her daughter pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). During closing argument at the
conclusion of the termination proceeding, appellant’s attorney stated appellant did not consent to
the termination or find it “appropriate.”1 Appellant’s attorney endorsed the termination order as
“seen and objected to” and wrote that “reasonable and appropriate efforts of Hampton Social
Services were not made to Tulana Forte to prevent or avoid the termination of her parental rights.
This resulted in her inability to substantially remedy the conditions that led to the child’s foster
care placement.” 	In contrast to appellant’s position in the trial court, on appeal appellant
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
1 Appellant was not present at the termination proceeding in the trial court. Nor had she
been present at the hearing during which the juvenile and domestic relations district court
terminated her parental rights.

- 2 -
contends the evidence did not prove she had not substantially remedied the conditions which led
to the child’s foster care placement.
The argument advanced on appeal was not raised in the trial court. “The Court of
Appeals will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial court.”
Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998). See Rule 5A:18.
Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars our consideration of this question on appeal.
Although Rule 5A:18 allows exceptions for good cause or to
meet the ends of justice, appellant does not argue that we should
invoke these exceptions. See e.g., Redman v. Commonwealth, 25
Va. App. 215, 221, 487 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1997) (“In order to avail
oneself of the exception, a defendant must affirmatively show that a
miscarriage of justice has occurred, not that a miscarriage might
have occurred.” (emphasis added)). We will not consider, sua
sponte, a “miscarriage of justice” argument under Rule 5A:18.
Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752, 761, 589 S.E.2d 444, 448 (2003) (en banc).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.