Laura Denise Edwards v. Alexandria Department of Social Services

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Elder, Felton and Senior Judge Willis LAURA DENISE EDWARDS v. Record No. 0579-05-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION* PER CURIAM JUNE 14, 2005 ALEXANDRIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA John E. Kloch, Judge (Anne Wren Norloff; Law Office of Anne Wren Norloff, on brief), for appellant. (Jonathan D. Westreich, on brief), for appellee. (Stephen F. Moller, on brief), Guardian ad litem for the minor children. On December 6, 2004, the trial court entered orders terminating the parental rights of Laura Edwards to her two sons pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B) and Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). Regarding two of Edwards daughters, the trial court entered permanency planning orders with the goal of permanent foster care. Concerning another daughter, the trial court also entered a permanency planning order with the goal of achieving Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement. On appeal, Edwards contends the trial court erred in entering the orders regarding her children at the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing she did not attend. Edwards also argues the trial court erred in entering the orders because the statutory requirements for foster care service * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. plans were not met and the Department of Social Services did not provide services necessary to address the conditions giving rise to the abuse and neglect. Edwards did not raise these arguments 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 the questions raised on appeal. Moreover, the record does not reflect any reason to invoke the good cause or ends of justice exceptions to Rule 5A:18. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decisions 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.