Opinion
No. 3-660 / 03-1016
Filed September 10, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Gerald W. Magee, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
F. David Eastman, Clear Lake, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Paul L. Martin, County Attorney, and Gregg Rosenbladt, Assistant County Attorney, appellee State.
Cynthia Foos, Assistant Public Defender, Mason City, for father.
Mark Young, of Young Law Office, Mason City, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Keri has three children, two of whom are the subject of this appeal: Sean, born in 1992, and Megan, born in 1998. The juvenile court terminated Keri's parental rights to both children. On appeal, Keri contends the evidence was insufficient to support the termination and the Department of Human Services ("Department") did not make reasonable efforts toward reunification. We affirm.
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence.
The juvenile court terminated Keri's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) (2001) (requiring proof that child cannot be returned to home). On our de novo review of the record, we find sufficient evidence to support termination under this provision.
This provision has since been renumbered and is now Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2001 Supp.). On appeal, Keri contends the evidence is insufficient to support termination under subsection (e), but cites the language of new subsection (g) (requiring proof of noncompliance with services and a showing that a period of rehabilitation would not correct the situation). As the juvenile court only made reference to old subsection (e), we will assume that is the provision at issue.
The children were removed from Keri's care in mid-2001 due to her use of illegal drugs, involvement in domestic abuse, and her inability to properly supervise them. Keri continued to use drugs for almost a year following the removal. Although she eventually entered a treatment program, obtained a job as a telemarketer, and secured adequate housing, service providers expressed uncertainty about her ability to sustain this improved lifestyle. A family therapist opined:
The reasons I'm uncertain is I don't believe that Keri has the ability at this point in time to provide the structure, routine, consistent parenting skills to meet Sean and Megan's emotional and physical needs. I don't believe she has the organizational skills for that at this point. I believe she's just getting on her feet herself and she's had sometimes a difficult time even making things work just for her, much less putting two more kids in there right now.
A Department social worker essentially concurred. He noted that, while Keri had advanced in her efforts to parent her children, she was still at least four months away from having the children returned to her. He also pointed out that Keri had recently married a man with a history of alcohol and domestic abuse problems, raising concerns that the children would once again return to the same environment they had left.
As Keri was afforded almost two years to resolve the issues leading to the children's removal and was not in a position to have them immediately returned to her, we conclude the cited statutory ground for termination was satisfied. SeeIowa Code§ 232.116(1)(f) (Supp. 2001); In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000).
II. Reasonable Efforts. "The State must show reasonable efforts as a part of its ultimate proof the child cannot be safely returned to the care of a parent." In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 493. Keri contends the Department failed to satisfy this requirement. She specifically takes issue with the Department's visitation efforts.
In early 2003, Keri graduated to unsupervised visitation. Then, Megan reported that her mother had sexually abused her and the Department suspended unsupervised visits until the allegation could be investigated. Although the Department determined the allegation was unfounded, it did not reinstitute unsupervised visits in light of concerns about Keri's husband. The Department did afford Keri twice-weekly supervised visits as well as weekend phone calls. As the Department provided these and other services throughout the CINA and termination proceedings, we believe it easily satisfied its reasonable efforts mandate.
III. Disposition.
We affirm the termination of Keri's parental rights to Megan and Sean.