Opinion
No. 4-148 / 04-0014
Filed March 24, 2004
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William A. Price, District Associate Judge.
Mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Edward Bull of the Bull Law Office, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant-mother.
Christopher Kragnes, Des Moines, for appellant-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jennifer Galloway, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Michael Bandstra, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Mahan, JJ.
Amie is the mother of five children, two of whom are involved in this appeal: J.F., born March 7, 2000, and C.F., born January 23, 2001. The children first came to the attention of the Department of Human Services (DHS) in July 2002, when one of Amie's older children started a fire in the house while Amie was sleeping resulting in serious injury to one of the older children. J.F. and C.F. were removed from Amie's care on July 12, 2002, and placed in the care of their paternal grandparents, Ed and Linda. On September 12, 2002, all five children were adjudicated in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent's failure to exercise care in supervising child) (2001). On March 19, 2003, J.F. and C.F. were removed from the grandparents' care due to Ed's failure to provide urinalysis as requested and placed in foster care. On October 13, 2003, the children were again removed from their placement into a different foster home because C.F. exhibited aggressive behavior toward the foster parents' child. On October 29 and 30, 2003, hearing was held on the State's petition to terminate the parental rights of Amie to J.F. and C.F. On December 10, the district court ordered termination of Amie's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (children are three years or younger, adjudicated CINA, removed from home for six out of the last twelve months, and cannot be returned home) (2003). Amie appeals.
The mother's name is spelled two different ways in the court record, Amie and Aime; it is unclear which is the correct spelling.
The father's parental rights were also terminated at the hearing under section 232.116(1)(h) but no appeal was taken.
We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). Our primary concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the children. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
On appeal, Amie asserts that clear and convincing evidence did not support the court's conclusion that J.F. and C.F. could not immediately return to her home, the termination was not in the children's best interests, and the State failed to make reasonable efforts to finalize a permanency plan. The concerns expressed at trial and in the DHS reports regarding Amie's ability to parent, and ultimately the children's return to her care, were based not on Amie's lack of a bond with the children or parenting skills but rather as the DHS report indicated,
[i]t was her sobriety, which she has maintained, her dependency on men, her inability to gain insight into how her relationships affect the parenting of her children, her being honest and forthright with information and given the suicide attempt, her emotional instability.
Amie's romantic relationships have been an ongoing issue. One of Amie's older children was sexually abused, the assailant unknown. Because of her abusive relationship with Ed, the father of J.F. and C.F., Amie sought and received a no-contact order against him. However, both Amie and Ed have violated this order during the pendency of this case. Also during the pendency of this case, Amie began dating another man, Carl, but when asked about him by DHS, Amie explained that he was gay and they were just friends. Amie was not forthcoming with DHS about the relationship as DHS learned about it through others. When it was discovered that they were dating, DHS ran a background check and found that in December 2002, Carl had been charged with conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, ongoing criminal conduct, possession of stolen property, and two counts of possession of precursors. At the time of the termination hearing, Carl was released on bail awaiting trial. Carl's DHS history also reveals a founded denial of critical care for lack of supervision. Amie was informed that involvement with Carl, and men like him, would hinder her ability to regain physical care of her children. Nonetheless, Amie and Carl were engaged at the time of the termination hearing, and Amie was living in a home owned by Carl's mother. It was reported to DHS that Amie was living with Carl in the home, but Amie denies this. While the record reflects Amie has made progress with the services provided by DHS, she continues to make poor decisions that will interfere with her ability to parent. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778,781 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997) ("At some point, the rights and needs of the child rise above the rights and needs of the parents."). Amie's suicide attempt also raised concerns about her emotional and mental health. However, Amie was unwilling to sign a release allowing DHS access to her medical records relating to the attempt on her life.
Amie also claims the district court erred in finding that the State made reasonable efforts to establish a permanency plan for the children. Specifically, Amie claims that three family members came forward to provide the children with a home and the State did not adequately inquire into these placements. However, the record reflects that the placements raised serious concerns with DHS for the well-being of the children. A home study was conducted on Amie's brother and his girlfriend, Edmond and Crystal, to evaluate their home as a possible placement for J.F. and C.F. The study found two concerns, one that J.F. and C.F. had been in foster care since March and Edmond and Crystal did not come forward earlier, and second the instability of their relationship. At the time of the home study, Crystal had moved out of their home and was living with friends. The second possible familial placement was with the paternal aunt, Barbara, and her husband, Rodney. The home study revealed that Rodney had two domestic abuse convictions against him and the home was not a safe and stable environment. The third, Linda, the children's paternal grandmother, came forward nine days prior to the termination hearing. The children had been placed with her and her husband before but were removed because her husband failed to provide urinalysis as required. Days before hearing, Linda claimed to be separated from her husband but continued to be dependent on him for financial support. The State made reasonable efforts to finalize a permanency plan for the children.
J.F. and C.F. had been removed from their mother's care for fifteen months as of the date of the termination hearing. They are currently in a preadoptive foster care home. Based on clear and convincing evidence found in the record we also conclude termination was appropriate and in the children's best interests. We therefore affirm.