In a parental rights termination, it was improper to consider a mental health “pre-admission screening report” on a parent, which included historical information and third-party statements from various sources, the Virginia Court of Appeals says in Ansell v. Harrisonburg/Rockingham Social Services District (1/15/19, unpublished). The report did not qualify for admission as a business record under Rule of Evidence 2:803(6), because its custodian could not testify that the records, or the information in them, came from someone with knowledge of the facts recorded in them. The report was hearsay and was offered at trial for the truth of what it said. However, the Court also found this to be harmless error. It explained that the report was used to prove the mother’s mental state at the time the children were taken, but “was of minimal value in determining” whether she had remedied her problems since then, which was the issue in the hearing. Also, she had not objected to admission of medical records from her hospitalization, or to other references to information from that pre-admission screening. And the trial court found “from its observations of Ansell while she testified” that the mental problems still existed.