Ricardo Esteban Astudillo v. Fairfax County Department of Family Services

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Alston, Decker and Senior Judge Coleman RICARDO ESTEBAN ASTUDILLO v. Record No. 0106-14-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION* PER CURIAM JULY 15, 2014 FAIRFAX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Michael F. Devine, Judge (Chanel M. Jackson; Lavonda N. Graham-Williams, on brief), for appellant. (David P. Bobzien, County Attorney; Peter D. Andreoli, Jr., Deputy County Attorney; Donna R. Banks, Assistant County Attorney; Darlene R. Langley, Guardian ad litem for the infant child; Langley & Langley, PC, on brief), for appellee. Ricardo Esteban Astudillo appeals the trial court s order terminating his parental rights to his child pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(B)(1), 16.1-283(B)(2)(a), 16.1-283(B)(2)(c), 16.1-283(C)(2), and 16.1-283(E)(i). Astudillo argues the trial court erred because he complied with the services offered by Fairfax County Department of Family Services as best as he could and there was no evidence of continuing domestic violence. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. Astudillo does not challenge the trial court s decision to terminate his rights pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(E)(i). This finding was supported by the evidence that Astudillo s parental rights to his other child were terminated in 2012. Because Astudillo does not challenge the trial court s * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. decision to terminate his residual parental rights under subsection (E), the issue of whether termination was warranted pursuant to subsections (B) and (C) is rendered moot. See Fields v. Dinwiddie Cnty. Dep t of Soc. Servs., 46 Va. App. 1, 8, 614 S.E.2d 656, 659 (2005) (termination of parental rights upheld under one subsection of Code § 16.1-283 forecloses need to consider termination under alternative subsections). The trial court s decision is summarily affirmed. 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.