Tulana Forte v. City of Hampton Department of Social Services
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Bumgardner, Kelsey and Senior Judge Overton TULANA FORTE v. Record No. 1422-04-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION* PER CURIAM DECEMBER 14, 2004 CITY OF HAMPTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON Wilford Taylor, Jr., Judge (Charles E. Haden, on brief), for appellant. (Lesa J. Yeatts, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence A. Martin, Guardian ad litem for the minor child; Coyle & Martin, on brief), for appellee. On June 14, 2004, the trial court entered an order terminating the parental rights of Tulana Forte to her daughter pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). During closing argument at the conclusion of the termination proceeding, appellant s attorney stated appellant did not consent to the termination or find it appropriate. 1 Appellant s attorney endorsed the termination order as seen and objected to and wrote that reasonable and appropriate efforts of Hampton Social Services were not made to Tulana Forte to prevent or avoid the termination of her parental rights. This resulted in her inability to substantially remedy the conditions that led to the child s foster care placement. In contrast to appellant s position in the trial court, on appeal appellant * 1 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Appellant was not present at the termination proceeding in the trial court. Nor had she been present at the hearing during which the juvenile and domestic relations district court terminated her parental rights. contends the evidence did not prove she had not substantially remedied the conditions which led to the child s foster care placement. The argument advanced on appeal was not raised in the trial court. The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial court. Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998). See Rule 5A:18. Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars our consideration of this question on appeal. Although Rule 5A:18 allows exceptions for good cause or to meet the ends of justice, appellant does not argue that we should invoke these exceptions. See e.g., Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 221, 487 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1997) ( In order to avail oneself of the exception, a defendant must affirmatively show that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, not that a miscarriage might have occurred. (emphasis added)). We will not consider, sua sponte, a miscarriage of justice argument under Rule 5A:18. Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752, 761, 589 S.E.2d 444, 448 (2003) (en banc). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. 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.
