WILKS v. FAIRFAX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES, 1758-14-4. (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
Number: invaco20150616d28
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jun. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 16, 2015
Summary: UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM . Jennifer Lynn Wilks (hereinafter "mother") appeals the termination of her residual parental rights to her child, J.W. Mother asserts the trial court erred by ruling that the Fairfax County Department of Family Services (hereinafter "DFM") made reasonable and appropriate efforts to assist her in reuniting with her child. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affir
Summary: UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM . Jennifer Lynn Wilks (hereinafter "mother") appeals the termination of her residual parental rights to her child, J.W. Mother asserts the trial court erred by ruling that the Fairfax County Department of Family Services (hereinafter "DFM") made reasonable and appropriate efforts to assist her in reuniting with her child. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm..
More
UNPUBLISHED
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
PER CURIAM.
Jennifer Lynn Wilks (hereinafter "mother") appeals the termination of her residual parental rights to her child, J.W. Mother asserts the trial court erred by ruling that the Fairfax County Department of Family Services (hereinafter "DFM") made reasonable and appropriate efforts to assist her in reuniting with her child. 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.
The trial court terminated mother's parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C) and 16.1-283(E)(i). Subsection (E)(i) provides as follows:
The residual parental rights of a parent or parents of a child who is in the custody of a local board or licensed child-placing agency may be terminated by the court if the court finds, based upon clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interests of the child and that (i) the residual parental rights of the parent regarding a sibling of the child have previously been involuntarily terminated. . . .
Mother attacks the sufficiency of the evidence solely with regard to whether she was provided adequate services.1 Subsection (E) does not impose a duty upon DFS to provide services to a parent.
Because mother does not challenge the trial court's decision to terminate her residual parental rights under subsection (E), the issue of whether termination was warranted pursuant to subsection (C) is rendered moot. Accordingly, we do not reach that issue as mother does not contest there are adequate grounds for termination of her parental rights under Code § 16.1-283(C). 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.
FootNotes
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
1. The only subsection of Code § 16.1-283 cited in mother's opening brief is subsection (B).
Source: Leagle
