In a Termination of Parental Rights case where the Fairfax County Department of Social Service prevailed, only the father appealed the decision. Fairfax County DSS v. Odoms proved to be a true best interest of the child case.
This case involved a mother who was diagnosed as psychotic and unaware she was pregnant until 34 weeks at which time she arrived at the hospital agitated and delivered a baby. Father arrived, denied child was his, refused to sign birth certificate but after mother was detained temporarily in the hospital the father remained present. CPS received a complaint shortly thereafter of abuse and neglect and the child was removed from the mother's home. With most of the case sealed, it soon became clear that neither father nor mother were going to engage with or complete the DSS process to bring the child home. With the father's lengthy criminal history and the mother unable to parent, the termination was granted.
The Court of Appeals said:
Father contends that the child was removed from his custody because of mother’s “extreme mental health issues” and her inability to care for S.O. He argues that once paternity was established, he completed all court-ordered obligations and demonstrated his ability to provide and care for S.O. Father’s argument focuses solely on the reasons the child was removed from mother’s care, and he ignores the fact that the child was removed from his custody because of his “extensive criminal history, untreated mental illness, and unstable housing.” Although father signed the initial releases that allowed the Department to monitor his progress, once they expired, he refused to sign new ones—preventing the Department from monitoring his compliance with services.
Further, father’s volatile behavior was a significant hurdle to the Department’s attempts to provide him with services to remedy the conditions. Father’s behavior caused him to be denied entry to the required nurturing parenting program, and it forced the Department to suspend visitation and ultimately change his visitation from in-person to virtual visits. He walked out of his first parent-child assessment, and when he returned, the evaluator felt that he self-sabotaged by how he behaved. He also failed to comply with the drug screening, and the one time he did comply, he tested positive for marijuana use. Thus, as the circuit court found, father did not take advantage of the services and efforts made by the Department and other agencies. Father was unable to recognize the seriousness of mother’s mental illness or its effect on his plans to care for S.O. Nor was he able to regulate his behavior and refrain from acting in an aggressive and disruptive way. Based on the evidence presented and father’s own behavior during the hearing, father “suffer[ed] from a significant condition that affects his mental health,” and despite taking medication, the condition was “not completely under [his] control.” Accordingly, we cannot say that the circuit court erred when it concluded that father had not remedied the conditions that resulted in the Department taking custody of S.O. “It is clearly not in the best interests 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 [or her] responsibilities. Termination affirmed.
An outcome where this child will be given a chance at life! Sometimes complete termination of parental rights is the only just outcome!
If need assistance with your divorce, or if you have questions about appeals or attorneys fees, please feel free to call us at (434)293-4562 or email us at [email protected]. Or, you can visit us online at www.charlovilttesledivorceattorney.com.- Rob Hagy
Comments