Jose L. Bernabe Hernandez v. Shenandoah Valley Department of Social Services

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Haley, Petty and Powell
Argued at Salem, Virginia
JOSE L. BERNABE HERNANDEZ
v. 	Record No. 1232-10-3
SHENANDOAH VALLEY DEPARTMENT 	MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
OF SOCIAL SERVICES 	JUDGE CLEO E. POWELL
MARCH 1, 2011
JOSE L. BERNABE HERNANDEZ
v. 	Record No. 1233-10-3
SHENANDOAH VALLEY DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF AUGUSTA COUNTY
Victor V. Ludwig, Judge
Frankie C. Coyner (Linda Schorsch Jones, Guardian ad litem; Law
Offices of Frankie C. Coyner; Poindexter, Schorsch, Jones & Hill,
on brief), for appellant.
James B. Glick (Angela V. Whitesell; Vellines, Cobbs, Goodwin &
Glass, on brief), for appellee.
Jose L. Bernabe Hernandez (“Hernandez”) appeals the decision of the Circuit Court of
Augusta County (“trial court”) terminating his parental rights to his two minor children pursuant
to Code § 16.1-283(E). On appeal, Hernandez contends that the evidence was insufficient to
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

- 2 -
support the trial court’s decision under either Code § 16.1-283(B) or (C)(2). Finding no
reversible error, we affirm the decision of the trial court.1
“Code § 16.1-283 embodies ‘the statutory scheme for the . . . termination of residual
parental rights in this Commonwealth’ . . . [which] ‘provides detailed procedures designed to
protect the rights of the parents and their child,’ balancing their interests while seeking to
preserve the family.” Lecky v. Reed, 20 Va. App. 306, 311, 456 S.E.2d 538, 540 (1995)
(quoting Rader v. Montgomery County Dep’t of Social Servs., 5 Va. App. 523, 526, 365 S.E.2d
234, 235 (1988)). In all cases brought under Code § 16.1-283, the court must find, by clear and
convincing evidence, that the termination of residual parental rights is in the best interests of the
child. Furthermore, the various subsections of Code § 16.1-283 provide distinct, “individual
bases upon which a petitioner may seek to terminate residual parental rights.” City of Newport
News v. Winslow, 40 Va. App. 556, 563, 580 S.E.2d 463, 466 (2003).
Although Shenandoah Valley Department of Social Services petitioned to terminate
Hernandez’s parental rights under subsections (B), (C)(2) and (E) of Code § 16.1-283, the trial
court specifically terminated his residual rights under only subsection (E). As the subsections of
Code § 16.1-283 are distinct, Hernandez’s failure to challenge the trial court’s decision to
terminate his residual parental rights under subsection (E), renders moot the issue of whether
termination was warranted pursuant to subsections (B) or (C)(2). See Fields v. Dinwiddie
County 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 the need to consider
1 As the parties are familiar with the record below, we cite only those facts necessary to the
disposition of the appeals.

- 3 -
termination under alternative subsections). Accordingly, we need not consider these matters and
affirm the decision of the trial court.
Affirmed.