Tai Sharrock v. Shenandoah Valley Department of Social Services
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Frank, Huff and Senior Judge Haley TAI SHARROCK v. Record No. 1033-12-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM OCTOBER 9, 2012 SHENANDOAH VALLEY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WAYNESBORO Humes J. Franklin, Jr., Judge (S. Scott Baker, on brief), for appellant. (James B. Glick; Stephanie Cangin, Guardian ad litem for the minor child; Vellines, Glick & Whitesell, P.L.C., on brief), for appellee. Tai Sharrock (hereinafter mother ) appeals the termination of her residual parental rights to her child, T.T. She maintains the trial court erred in finding that the Shenandoah Valley Department of Social Services (hereinafter DSS ) met its burden by clear and convincing evidence to terminate mother s residual parental rights to her child. Mother presents no argument in support of her assignment of error. Instead, she offers only a conclusory statement that DSS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the best interests of the child, and the requisite statute [§ ]16.1-283. Statements unsupported by argument, authority, or citations to the record do not merit appellate consideration. We will not search the record for errors in order to interpret appellant s contention and correct deficiencies in a brief. Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Furthermore, mother has failed to include a transcript of the termination hearing or a statement of facts in the record on appeal. As mother maintains DSS failed to present sufficient evidence to support termination of her residual parental rights, either a transcript or a statement of facts is indispensable to a determination of the assignment of error. See Anderson v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 506, 508-09, 413 S.E.2d 75, 76-77 (1992); Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 99-100, 341 S.E.2d 400, 402 (1986). 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.
