Opinion
No. 5-929 / 05-1792
Filed January 19, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Constance Cohen, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Jane M. White of Parrish, Kruidenier, Moss, Dunn, Boles, Gribble Cook, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Stephanie Brown, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Lawrence James, Jr. of Jackowski, Graves James, Clive, for the father.
Todd E. Babich of Babich, Goldman, Cashatt Renzo, P.C., for intervenors.
J. Karnale Manuel and Marshall Orsini, Student Intern, Drake Legal Clinic, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered en banc.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Patricia and Joel are the parents of Alexia, born in March 2004. The young parents permitted the maternal great-aunt, Tina, to care for the child much of the time. In October 2004, Patricia demanded that Alexia be returned to her care, even though she was living with the maternal grandmother who had recently tested positive for cocaine. Alexia was removed from Patricia's care and placed with Tina.
Joel consented to the termination of his parental rights, and he is not a party to this appeal.
Alexia was adjudicated to be a child in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2005) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent's failure to supervise) and (n) (parent's drug or alcohol abuse results in child not receiving adequate care). Patricia was ordered to obtain a psycho-social evaluation and participate in in-home services. Tina intervened in the juvenile court proceedings.
At the time of the adjudication, the parties anticipated that Patricia would enter a facility that would permit her to have Alexia with her, such as the House of Mercy. Patricia then decided she did not want to be in a structured living environment, and so Alexia was not returned to her care. Patricia also declined the opportunity to live with Alexia at Tina's house. Patricia originally had unsupervised visitation, but contrary to recommendations by the Iowa Department of Human Services, she permitted her new boyfriend, David, to attend a visit. Visits were then changed to supervised.
Patricia moved in with David. David did not participate in services. Patricia only minimally complied with services. She failed to make progress in her parenting skills, and she made David a priority instead of her daughter. Patricia only attended visitation when Tina brought Alexia to her; Patricia did not travel to visit Alexia.
In July 2005, the State filed a petition seeking termination of Patricia's parental rights. Patricia did not complete a psycho-social evaluation until after the petition was filed. She was found to have histrionic personality traits. Patricia testified she did not get a psycho-social evaluation earlier because "I really didn't feel like I needed to do it." Also, after the termination petition was filed Patricia started traveling to Tina's home to visit Alexia.
The juvenile court terminated Patricia's parental rights under sections 232.116(1)(b) (abandonment), (d) (circumstances continue despite the receipt of services), (e) (parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact), and (h) (child is three or younger, CINA, removed for at least six months, and cannot be returned home). The court noted, "Unfortunately, despite the receipt and offer of services . . . Alexia cannot be returned to the custody of either parent today without further adjudicatory harm. It is, sadly, a case of too little too late." The court concluded termination of the Patricia's parental rights was in Alexia's best interests. Patricia appeals.
II. Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). Our primary concern is the best interest of the child. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Patricia disputes the juvenile court's conclusion that the record supports the termination of her parental rights. The evidence showed Alexia could not safely be returned to Patricia's care. Although Patricia had made some recent progress with services, she still lacked parenting skills. The juvenile court noted, "Patricia resists changing her behaviors and does not appear to be able to internalize the material or learn from her experiences." More importantly, however, Patricia did not demonstrate a commitment to having Alexia returned to her care. The evidence shows Alexia would likely be subjected to adjudicatory harm if returned to Patricia's care.
We conclude Patricia's parental rights were properly terminated under section 232.116(1)(h). By affirming on this ground, we do not need to address the other code sections cited by the juvenile court as reasons for termination of Patricia's parental rights. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999) ("[W]e need only find grounds to terminate under one of the sections cited by the juvenile court to affirm.").
IV. Reasonable Efforts
Patricia claims the State did not engage in reasonable efforts to prevent the continued out of home placement of Alexis. While the State has the obligation to make reasonable efforts for reunification, it is a parent's responsibility to demand services if they are not offered prior to the termination hearing. In re H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d 675, 679 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). Patricia does not state what other or different services she believes should have been offered to her. We conclude Patricia has failed to preserve error on this issue.
V. Additional Time
At the termination hearing, Patricia asked for an additional six months in order to demonstrate an improvement of her parenting skills. Our courts have followed the principle that the statutory time lines must be followed, and a child should not be forced to wait for a parent to gain necessary parenting skills. In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). Patience with parents can soon translate into intolerable hardship for a child. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Iowa 1997).
Patricia waited until the petition for termination of parental rights to be filed before she began to make progress in this case. Alexis should not be forced to wait any longer for a stable and secure home. We find the juvenile court properly denied Patricia's request to delay matters for an additional six months.
VI. Testimony
Patricia contends the juvenile court should not have permitted testimony in regard to the bond between Alexis and Tina. The juvenile court found the evidence was material and relevant. We agree that the evidence was relevant on the issue of Alexis's best interests. We also note that evidence of the bond between Alexis and Tina was already in the record through the reports of social workers involved in the case.
VII. Best Interests
Patricia asserts termination of her parental rights is not in Alexis's best interests. As noted above, Patricia has not made Alexis a priority in her life. Patricia has consistently placed her own interests above those of Alexis. We conclude termination is in Alexis's best interests.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.