Opinion
No. 1-976 / 01-0836.
Filed February 6, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buena Vista County, MARY L. TIMKO, Associate Juvenile Judge.
Mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights, contending: (1) the State failed to prove the statutory requirements to support termination; (2) termination was not in the best interests of the children; and (3) reasonable efforts were not extended in an effort to reunite the family. AFFIRMED.
Peter Goldsmith of Boerner and Goldsmith, Ida Grove, for appellant-father.
Thomas Eller of Eller, Brink Sextro, Denison, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, and Rick Kimble, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Jessica and James appeal the termination of their parental rights. On appeal the parents contend: (1) the State failed to prove the statutory requirements to support termination; (2) termination was not in the best interests of the children; and (3) reasonable efforts were not extended in an effort to reunite the family.
Jessica, the biological mother of both Nathan and Michael, appeals the termination of her parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(c) (1999), 232.116(1)(e) (pertaining to Nathan), and 232.116(1)(g) (pertaining to Michael). James, the biological father of Michael, appeals the termination of his parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(c) and 232.116(1)(g). Kurt, the biological father of Nathan, does not appeal the termination of his parental rights.
Background Facts and Proceedings .
Jessica and James met in 1994 when they worked together in a factory. They began living together shortly thereafter. At the time, Jessica had a one-year-old son, Nathan, from a previous relationship. On October 24, 1997 Jessica and James had a son of their own, Michael.
The family first came to the attention of the Department of Human Services (DHS) in 1995 after a founded report of physical abuse involving James and Nathan in Ida County. The family then moved to Crawford County where they remained involved with DHS after founded reports of denial of critical care based on the unsanitary and unhealthy condition of their home. The family then relocated to Buena Vista County where they were again cited for denial of critical care due to the unsanitary condition of their home, as well as for failure to provide proper supervision over Nathan.
In an effort to improve the condition of their home and their troubled financial situation James and Jessica were assisted with housekeeping and budgeting by programs offered through DHS. Department workers voiced concerns regarding the safety of the home where they found holes in the floor covered by carpeting, broken glass and automobile parts strewn about the entryway, water in the bathroom provided by a hose snaked from the kitchen sink, sporadic electricity and heat due to unpaid bills, cat feces on the floor and numerous pet rats residing in the children's bedroom. Efforts to assist the couple with housekeeping and budgeting were met with resistance, particularly by James. A caseworker testified she felt uncomfortable working with the family because of James's intimidation.
In April of 1998 Nathan and Michael were adjudicated to be Children in Need of Assistance (CINA) based on the previous founded reports of physical abuse, neglect, and lack of adequate supervision. While the condition of the home was an obvious concern to the court and care providers, the CINA adjudication order from the juvenile court found that the case involved more than just inappropriate housekeeping. The court noted a clear pattern of dysfunction, inappropriate discipline, and alleged physical abuse.
At the subsequent dispositional hearing in the CINA proceedings, the court imposed certain requirements on Jessica and James. Satisfied by the parent's assurances that they would comply with these requirements, the court returned the children to their care. On July 1, 1998 the court found that the parents had not complied and granted the State's application for emergency removal. Nathan and Michael were taken into DHS custody for placement in foster care.
In August, the court again relied upon Jessica and James's assurances of improvement and purported commitment to change and returned the children to their care for a trial home placement. During this extended home visit the same concerns regarding inappropriate discipline and substandard housekeeping continued to surface.
In October 1998 the court reviewed the situation and determined that the children could not be returned to the fulltime custody of Jessica and James. Nathan and Michael were returned to the custody of DHS for foster care placement, while continuing extended visitation periods with Jessica and James. During these home visits Nathan would have behavior problems and wetting accidents both at home and at school. Dealing with Nathan's diagnosed Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) presented an additional challenge for an already strained family. On the other hand, care providers observed that while in foster care, Nathan would gain weight, have fewer wetting accidents, and have better control over his behavior.
On June 9, 2000 the State filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Jessica, as to both boys, James, as to his son Michael, and Kurt, as to his son Nathan. The juvenile court found that termination was appropriate and ordered Jessica's parental rights terminated to Nathan and Michael pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(c), 232.116(1)(e) (pertaining to Nathan), and 232.116(1)(g) (pertaining to Michael). James's parental rights to Michael were also terminated pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(c) and 232.116(1)(g).
In September of 2000, Jessica gave birth to twin daughters whose interests are unaffected by these proceedings. At the time of the termination proceedings, Jessica and James continued to reside together with the twins and neither was employed.
Scope of Review .
The standard of review in termination cases is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 4; In re J.J.S., 628 N.W.2d 25, 28 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001).
Statutory Requirements — Sufficiency of the Evidence .
On appeal Jessica and James contend there is a lack of sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's decision to terminate their parental rights. We need only find clear and convincing evidence in support of one ground to affirm the termination of parental rights. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). Section 232.116(1)(c) provides that termination is appropriate where the court finds that both of the following have occurred:
(1) The court has previously adjudicated the child to be a child in need of assistance after finding the child to have been physically or sexually abused or neglected as the result of the acts or omissions of one or both parents, or the court has previously adjudicated a child who is a member of the same family to be a child in need of assistance after such a finding.
(2) Subsequent to the child in need of assistance adjudication, the parents were offered or received services to correct the circumstances which led to the adjudication, and the circumstance continues to exist despite the offer or receipt of services.
Nathan and Michael were adjudicated CINA in April 1998 on grounds including, but not limited to, a juvenile court finding that the parents had physically abused or neglected the children. The adjudication was based on five founded child abuse reports dating back to 1995. Since the first founded allegation of child abuse in 1995, and continuing after the CINA adjudication, DHS has offered services to assist James and Jessica with anger management, housekeeping, budgeting, and appropriate parenting skills. The couple's commitment to change has been wavering, and at times they have refused to comply with services.
We agree with the juvenile court's determination that the circumstances which initially led to Nathan and Michael being adjudicated CINA continue to exist despite the offer and receipt of services. Service providers, counselors and psychologists testified regarding their attempts to stabilize the family environment. Bobby Winslow, a DHS social worker, testified that in reviewing service provider reports from May 18, 1998 through May 19, 2000, there had been no significant change or progress with regard to home stability, financial stability or housekeeping. Caseworkers and court orders continue to require that James receive anger management counseling, but he refuses to comply.
The parents' primary argument on appeal is that the juvenile court failed to adequately consider the marked improvements the couple has made in recent months. Despite James and Jessica's attempts to prepare a home for the boys, the record supports the juvenile court's determination that they could not safely be returned to the home. While we recognize the parents' continued efforts, we also realize that patience with parents can soon translate into intolerable hardship for children. See In re A.Y.H., 508 N.W.2d 92, 96 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993). We find clear and convincing evidence supports the termination of Jessica and James's parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(c). Finding the statutory requirements for termination satisfied under 232.116(1)(c), consideration of other grounds is unnecessary.
Based on these factors, we also find that termination is in the best interests of Nathan and Michael. See In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994) (court must consider the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the children in evaluating their best interests.) Due to the actions of Jessica and James, the boys have been forced to endure a childhood fraught with turmoil and inconsistency. The crucial days of childhood cannot be suspended while parents experiment with ways to face up to their personal problems. See In re D.A., 506 N.W.2d 478, 479 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993). Nathan and Michael should not be forced to wait any longer while Jessica and James attempt to create a suitably stable home environment.
Reasonable Efforts .
We find reasonable efforts to reunite this family were made. As previously mentioned, the family came to the attention of DHS in 1995. Since that time Jessica and James have been offered and received a wide variety of services from various agencies including Lutheran Social Services (LSS), Family Preservation through LSS, Family Centered Services through LSS, protective daycare, homemaker services, and Maternal Newborn Program. These services were met with intermittent cooperation. Jessica and James refuse to accept responsibility for their family's troubled situation. In their view service providers, and even the children, are the cause of their problems. Consequently, services have been ineffective. Our de novo review of the record shows support for the trial court's finding that reasonable efforts were made in an attempt to reunify this family.
The district court's termination order is affirmed in its entirety.
AFFIRMED.