Francisco Zavala v Arlington Co. Dpt of Human Svs

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis
FRANCISCO ZAVALA MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. 	Record No. 1428-98-4 	PER CURIAM
OCTOBER 6, 1998
ARLINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF HUMAN SERVICES
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
William T. Newman, Jr., Judge
(Sean D. O'Malie; Pelton, Balland, Young,
Demsky, Baskin & O'Malie, P.C., on brief),
for appellant.
(Mary E. Craig, Assistant County Attorney, on
brief), for appellee.
Francisco Zavala (father) appeals the decision of the
circuit court terminating his residual parental rights. 	The
circuit court found that the Arlington County Department of Human
Services (DHS) presented clear and convincing evidence sufficient
under Code § 16.1-283(C) to support its petition to terminate the
parental rights of father and his wife to their three children.
The mother did not appeal the circuit court's termination
decision. 	On appeal, father contends that the trial court erred
in finding the evidence sufficient. 	Upon reviewing the record
and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is
without merit. 	Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of
the trial court. 	See Rule 5A:27.
*Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.

- 2 -
"When addressing matters concerning a child, including the
termination of a parent's residual parental rights, the paramount
consideration of a trial court is the child's best interests."
Logan v. Fairfax County Dep't of Human Development, 13 Va. App.
123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1991).
"In matters of a child's welfare, trial
courts are vested with broad discretion in
making the decisions necessary to guard and
to foster a child's best interests." 	The
trial court's judgment, "when based on
evidence heard ore tenus, will not be
disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or
without evidence to support it."
Id. (citations omitted). 	"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) (citations omitted).
Code § 16.1-283(C) provides that the residual parental
rights of a child placed in foster care may be terminated if the
trial court finds it is in the best interests of the child and,
in pertinent part,
[t]he parent or parents, without good cause,
have been unwilling or unable within a
reasonable period not to exceed twelve months
to remedy substantially the conditions which
led to the child's foster care placement,
notwithstanding the reasonable and
appropriate efforts of social, medical,
mental health or other rehabilitative
agencies to such end.

- 3 -
Code § 16.1-283(C)(2).
DHS initially provided services to the family in 1991.
Subsequently, DHS provided numerous services in connection with
repeated emergency removals due to abuse and neglect of the
children. 	The first removal occurred following an incident of
domestic violence by father against the mother and the two older
children. 	The mother was psychotic and was hospitalized
temporarily. 	Father acknowledged that he could not care for the
children. 	He did not visit the children while they were in
foster care. 	DHS offered father parenting classes and home-based
services with the goal of returning the children to their home,
but neither father nor mother worked successfully with the
service providers. 	Additional incidents of domestic violence
occurred. 	Although the mother continued to suffer repeated bouts
of mental illness, she attended therapy and took the prescribed
medication only sporadically.
Father admitted that he had had problems with alcohol
previously, but denied he had problems with domestic violence.
He also denied that the mother suffered from mental illness.
Dr. Gloria Morote, a licensed clinical psychologist, testified
that father's test results indicated that he had both motor and
neurological abnormalities, resulting in poor short term memory,
poor attention, poor judgment, inability to handle stress, and
aggression. 	Father's behavior indicated that he had an impaired
perception of reality. 	While Dr. Morote believed father's

- 4 -
neurological problems were possibly organic in nature, she was
pessimistic about the likelihood that he would improve because he
refused further neurologic testing to confirm the basis for his
problems and refused other treatment which could have alleviated
his problems. 	Father's neurological problems left him unable to
work with others, unable to accommodate others, and unable to
modify his behavior.
DHS provided numerous services for the parents, including
parenting classes, anger management classes, medical and
psychological assistance, home-based services, and transportation
assistance. 	DHS also relied upon Spanish language interpreters
and workers, both to ensure accurate communication and to avoid
any cultural bias or misunderstandings. 	Father completed several
portions of the programs required, but did so with such
resistance that the services were ineffective.
Credible evidence demonstrated that, while in their parents'
custody, the children received poor care. 	They dressed
inappropriately for cold weather and went to day care hungry and
unclean. 	There were repeated incidents of domestic abuse. 	The
children's therapist described the oldest child as withdrawn,
worried, sad, and suffering from feelings of helplessness. 	The
middle child spoke of feeling "like a grown-up on the inside,"
and was described as precocious and overprotective of both her
older and younger siblings. 	The youngest child was withdrawn and
intensely angry. 	All three children needed permanence and

- 5 -
consistency in a home with limits, but not anger.
Based upon the evidence, the trial court found that the
children suffered neglect and abuse, including inappropriate
clothing, poor hygiene, and inadequate food; that the abuse and
neglect presented a serious and substantial threat to the
children's life, health, and development; and that it was not
reasonably likely that those conditions could be substantially
corrected or eliminated so as to allow the children's safe return
to their parents within a reasonable period of time. 	The trial
court also found that father was unwilling or unable to remedy
substantially those underlying conditions, notwithstanding the
efforts made by agencies. 	The trial court expressly found that
father suffered from a form of dementia and refused neurological
examination or appropriate services.
Father contends that he complied substantially with the
service plans and that the trial court erred by failing to grant
his motion to reconsider and continue the case for the provision
of additional services. 	We disagree. 	The evidence demonstrated
that the children had spent over half their lives in foster care.
The court did not err in denying father's request for additional
time within which to remedy the underlying problems. 	"It is
clearly not in the best interest 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." 	Kaywood v.
Dep't of Soc. Servs., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495

- 6 -
(1990).
Because credible evidence supported the trial court's
determination that DHS met the statutory requirements of Code
§ 16.1-283 to terminate father's parental rights, that
determination was not plainly wrong or lacking in evidence to
support it. 	Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is
summarily affirmed.
Affirmed.