COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Beales, Huff and Senior Judge Annunziata UNPUBLISHED LAURIANNE KRISTIN QUESENBERRY MEMORANDUM OPINION* v. Record No. 1340-20-3 PER CURIAM JULY 27, 2021 GILES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GILES COUNTY Robert M. D. Turk, Judge (Suzanne Bowen, on brief), for appellant. (Richard L. Chidester, County Attorney; Zachary B. Smith, Guardian ad litem for the minor children; Buckland Law Firm, P.L.L.C., on brief), for appellee. Laurianne Kristin Quesenberry (mother) appeals the circuit court’s orders terminating her parental rights to her three children. Mother argues that the circuit court erred in finding that the evidence was sufficient to terminate her parental rights “when the record shows that she participated in all services provided by the Department of Social Services; maintained visitation with her sons; and had good cause for her lack of employment and appropriate housing.” 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 circuit court. See Rule 5A:27. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. BACKGROUND1 “On appeal from the termination of parental rights, this Court is required to review the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing in the circuit court.” Yafi v. Stafford Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 69 Va. App. 539, 550-51 (2018) (quoting Thach v. Arlington Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 63 Va. App. 157, 168 (2014)). Mother and Eric Adam Quesenberry (father) are the biological parents to E.Q., L.Q., and R.Q., the children who are the subject of this appeal.2 Father and mother reportedly married in 2012 and separated in 2018. After the parents’ separation, father and the children moved to his mother’s house. In September 2019, the Giles County Department of Social Services (the Department) received a complaint that father was “unsteady on his feet” when he picked up one of the children from school. The Department conducted a home visit and found that the living conditions were “not safe” for the children due to clutter in the home, mattresses “all over the floor,” and black mold in the bathroom. The Department entered into a safety plan with father, who agreed to move with the children out of his mother’s home and into his girlfriend’s home. On September 16, 2019, father brought the children to school late and “appeared to be on drugs” because he could “barely stand up or keep his eyes open and had incoherent speech.” Later that day, the Department met with father who was “irrational” and denied any drug use. Father eventually admitted to using Suboxone after the Department gave him a drug screen. The 1 The record in this case was sealed. Nevertheless, the appeal necessitates unsealing relevant portions of the record to resolve the issues appellant has raised. Evidence and factual findings below that are necessary to address the assignments of error are included in this opinion. Consequently, “[t]o the extent that this …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals