Suffolk Department of Social Services v O. Ellis

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judge Bumgardner and Senior Judge Hodges SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES v. Record No. 1705-00-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM MARCH 13, 2001 ORLANDO ELLIS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SUFFOLK Rodham T. Delk, Jr., Judge (C. Edward Roettger; Curt G. Spear; Beverly Brooks; Office of City Attorney, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. No brief for appellee. This matter arises out of a petition filed by the City of Suffolk Department of Social Services (Department) to terminate Orlando Ellis' parental rights in his minor daughter. After the City of Suffolk Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court denied the Department's petition, the Department appealed to the Suffolk Circuit Court. After closing arguments, the circuit court also denied the petition. The Department appeals from that ruling. Counsel for the Department drafted the order for the June 13, 2000 ruling on the City Attorney's Office stationary. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. At the end of the order denying the Department's petition, the Department's counsel signed the order "We ask for this." Having expressly agreed with the trial court's conclusions, the Department is now precluded from complaining of attendant error. "'The [Department], having agreed upon the action taken by the trial court, should not be allowed to assume an inconsistent position.'" Manns v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 677, 679, 414 S.E.2d 613, 615 (1992) (quoting Clark v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 201, 214, 257 S.E.2d 784, 792 (1979)). The Department's "Written Statement of Facts/Evidence" likewise fails to preserve the Department's objections for appeal. "The burden is upon the appellant to provide us with a record which substantiates the claim of error. thereof, we will not consider the point." In the absence Jenkins v. Winchester Dep't of Soc. Servs., 12 Va. App. 1178, 1185, 409 S.E.2d 16, 20 (1991). Based upon the record before us, we find no evidence that the Department preserved any issues for appeal. Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is affirmed. Affirmed. - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.