 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Harris v. Campbell County Dep't of Social Services10/5/2004
Christopher Shawn Harris, father, appeals the trial court's decision terminating his parental rights to his two minor children. Father contends the evidence was insufficient to support the termination of his parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B)(1) because the court erred in finding that he failed to follow through with recommended and available treatment. Father also contends the evidence was insufficient to support the termination of his parental rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B)(2) and 16.1-283(C) because the court erred in finding that he was unwilling or unable within a reasonable amount of time to substantially remedy the conditions requiring that the children remain in foster care. 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.
Background
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and grant to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Logan v. Fairfax County Dep't of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 462 (1991). So viewed, the evidence established that when the children initially entered the foster care system, they had been living with their mother, Tammy Davis, while appellant was incarcerated for driving under the influence , third or subsequent offense, and for driving after having been declared a habitual offender. Karen Tinsley, a foster care worker, initially worked with Davis. After appellant was released from incarceration in July 2002, Tinsley "set him up" with Comprehensive Family Services and offered him psychological testing, parenting classes, and visitations with the children. Appellant was attending weekly AA meetings; other services relating to alcohol were not offered by Tinsley because that matter was being handled through appellant's probation and it was her "sense" that appellant had not been drinking since his release from incarceration.
Dr. Andrew Anderson, a clinical psychologist, performed a psychological evaluation of appellant and determined that appellant's limited understanding of child development and principles of parenting posed a risk to the children. Anderson also noted the additional risk of appellant's history of alcohol abuse, and noted that if appellant drank as much alcohol as he said he did, he would be incapacitated a substantial amount of time. Appellant acknowledged he had never sought treatment for his alcohol abuse. At his first appointment with Anderson, appellant told Anderson he had not been drinking for twenty-five months. On November 9, 2002, before his next appointment with Anderson, appellant was seen drinking and driving and was involved in an altercation with Davis. Appellant moved frequently and failed to keep his probation officer apprised of where he actually lived or worked. Appellant failed to provide verification of his attendance at AA meetings as required by his probation officer.
Michele Chaffin, a Comprehensive Family Services employee, made an unannounced visit on November 9, 2002 to the residence where appellant and Davis were having an unsupervised visit with the children. Appellant was not there but when he returned, he smelled of alcohol, was unsteady on his feet, slurred his words and made nonsensical conversation. Chaffin left the residence to avoid alarming appellant or the children and called her supervisor, Desiree Blankenship. While Blankenship waited to meet Chaffin at a nearby convenience store, she saw appellant "whiz" into the store's parking lot and park in an angle rather than in a parking "slot," leave his car running while he entered the store to buy beer, a
Page 1 2 3 Virginia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|