Opinion
No. 6-121 / 06-0040
Filed March 15, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, William S. Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to two children. AFFIRMED.
Ryan Mitchell of Orsborn, Bauerle, Milani Grother, L.L.P., Ottumwa, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert Bozwell, County Attorney, for appellee.
Kevin Maughan, Albia, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
Stacey (also referred to at places in the record as "Stacy") is the mother, and Carroll is the father, of Maddison, born in October 2000, and Britian, born in July 2003 (the children). Stacey appeals from a January 2006 juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to the children. The order also terminated Carroll's parental rights, but he has not appealed. We affirm.
In August 2004 the children were living with Stacey in Iowa. Carroll was living in Florida, where he has apparently thereafter remained at all or most all times. The children came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) in August 2004. It was reported that Stacey had been smoking marijuana in the children's presence. It was also reported that she had allowed the children to be in the custody of her mother, who had taken them to a friend's home to consume alcohol and while there they were exposed to and witnessed the friend assault another person. Drug testing indicated Stacey had been using marijuana and the children had been exposed to it.
The DHS and Stacey agreed to a safety plan that allowed the children to remain with her. In early September 2004 Stacey left the children with several intoxicated persons while she went to a tavern with her mother. The children were removed from Stacey's physical custody and placed in the legal custody of the DHS for placement in foster care. They have thereafter remained in DHS custody and foster care placement through hearings and orders approving temporary removal, adjudicating them to be children in need of assistance (CINA), ordering disposition in the CINA proceeding, establishing permanency, reviewing permanency, and terminating parental rights.
In September 2005 the State filed a petition seeking termination of Stacey's parental rights. Following a November 2005 hearing the juvenile court entered its ruling in early January 2006. It terminated Stacey's parental rights on the grounds set forth in Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(f) (2005) (Maddison), (h) (Britian), and (l) (Maddison and Britian). Stacey appeals.
We review termination proceedings de novo. Although we are not bound by them, we give weight to the trial court's findings of fact, especially when considering credibility of witnesses. The primary interest in termination proceedings is the best interests of the child. To support the termination of parental rights, the State must establish the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116 by clear and convincing evidence.
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (citations omitted).
Stacey claims termination was not proper because she had cooperated with court-ordered services. The evidence indicates that she cooperated with services, including substance abuse evaluation and treatment, in the very early stages of the juvenile court proceedings and that at that time she appeared interested in reunification with the children. However, the record thereafter is to the contrary.
In about September 2004 Stacey moved to Florida where, with the exception of a brief period during which she apparently resided in Indiana, she remained until returning to Iowa in August 2005. Stacey participated in only one parent skill development session while in Iowa, and none while away from Iowa. She refused a request to have a home study done in Florida. While in Florida she regularly used methamphetamine.
After returning to Iowa in August 2005 Stacey was entitled to weekly visitations with the children. Between her return and the November termination hearing she scheduled only seven visits, failed to appear for two of those, and had only one visit with the children after September 2005. During the few visits that she did exercise, Stacey appeared unable to deal with both children at the same time. She failed to attend scheduled mental health counseling sessions. She failed or refused to participate in substance abuse counseling after returning to Iowa, despite testing positive for methamphetamine and admitting to marijuana use.
As early as August 2005 Stacey began telling DHS personnel she did not intend to attend any termination of parental rights hearing, and intended to allow her rights to be terminated. Although present at the courthouse on the day of the termination hearing, she declined to attend the hearing and left.
We find that after Stacey participated in services very early in the juvenile court proceedings, she thereafter engaged in a wholesale failure or refusal to meaningfully participate in necessary and required services. Her claim to the contrary is without merit.
Stacey also claims termination of her parental rights is not in the best interest of the children. However, she has had and continues to have mental health and substance abuse problems, which she has failed or refused to meaningfully address. At the time of the termination hearing Stacey remained unemployed and without stable housing, apparently living with friends. Because of her lengthy absence from a meaningful presence in the children's lives, she has no strong parent-child bond with them. At the time of the termination hearing the children were well adjusted and doing well in foster care. We agree with the juvenile court that as of the termination Stacey was "no closer to having the children returned today than she was when the children were removed in September 2004." The children need and deserve security, stability, and permanency, which they have been and continue to be unable to acquire with Stacey. We find, as the juvenile court did, that termination of Stacey's parental rights is in the children's best interest.