Fields v. Dinwiddie County Department of Social Services

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that because the Court affirmed termination under one subsection of Code § 16.1-283 it did not need to address termination under another subsection
• holding that because the Court affirmed termination of parental rights under one subsection of Code § 16.1-283, it did not need to address termination of parental rights pursuant to another subsection
• finding that when termination of parental rights under one subsection of Code § 16.1-283 is upheld, the Court need not consider termination under alternative subsections
• finding that when termination of parental rights under one subsection of Code § 16.1-283 is upheld, the Court need not consider termination under alternative subsections
• holding that the Court did not need to address - 10 - the mother’s challenge to the termination of parental rights on one ground because she did not appeal the trial court’s decision to terminate her parental rights on a second ground
• holding that when a trial court’s judgment is made on alternative grounds, we need only consider whether any one of the alternatives is sufficient to sustain the judgment of the trial court and, if we so find, need not address the other grounds

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).