Opinion
No. 5-805 / 05-1543
Filed November 9, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, James McGlynn, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Marci Lundberg, Blake Parker Law Office, Fort Dodge, for appellant.
Kurt Pittner, Fort Dodge, for father N.H.
T.S., Lincoln, Nebraska, father of T.K., pro se.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Timothy Schott, County Attorney, and Wendy Samuelson, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Angela Ostrander of Bennett, Crimmins Ostrander, Fort Dodge, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Mahan and Hecht, JJ.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Rorena is the mother of Trai, Amira, Sameh, Kiefah, Michelle, and Shafee. Ty is the father of Trai. Nozey Jr. is the father of the other children. Rorena and Nozey are married. Their relationship involves domestic abuse and substance abuse. Rorena suffers from seizures as well as mental health problems.
The five oldest children were adjudicated to be children in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.96 (1999) on November 9, 2000. The youngest child was adjudicated a child in need of assistance on May 21, 2003. The family was provided with numerous and varying intensive support from both the state and the communities in which they lived. The children were removed and returned to their parents' custody various times. There has been no change in the parents' ability to care for the children. As a result, they have continuously resided in foster care since May 8, 2003.
All of the children have been diagnosed victims of physical abuse and neglect. Four suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder, one from anxiety disorder with posttraumatic disorder features, and one from expressive language disorder. They have expressed extreme fear of being returned to Rorena and Nozey. One of the children was described as catatonic after being informed Nozey was going to be released from jail. Though there is a no-contact order against Nozey, evidence shows he and Rorena are living together.
A hearing to terminate parental rights was held on August 19, 2005. None of the parents appeared for the hearing. Ty filed a voluntary consent to the termination of his parental rights on May 9, 2005. Both Rorena and Nozey had arrest warrants waiting to be served upon them. The district court refused to continue the matter, concluding their absence was the result of their attempts to avoid arrest and their realization at the hopelessness of their position. The petition to terminate Rorena's and Nozey's parental rights was granted pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (e), and (f) (2005). Ty's parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(a), (d), (e), and (f). Rorena appeals.
II. Standard of Review
The standard 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 interests of the children. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
III. Merits
Rorena argues the evidence does not show (1) she failed to maintain significant and meaningful contact with the children in the last six months; (2) she failed to make reasonable efforts to resume care of the children despite being given the opportunity to do so; (3) the children cannot be returned to her care under section 232.102; and (4) the termination meets the best interests of the children.
First, Rorena's visitations with the children were reduced over the last year because she continues to have a relationship with their abusive father. Three of the children did not want to visit their mother because they were afraid. In August 2005 Rorena did not visit the children, did not notify the State of her whereabouts, and did not attend the termination hearing. We think there is ample evidence that Rorena did not maintain significant and meaningful contact with her children.
Second, both the state and the communities in which the family lived provided Rorena with ample services to help her care for her children. Despite assistance, she has shown no change in her parenting skills. The only arguments Rorena offers are (1) that we should not terminate her rights because she failed to comply with her case plan and (2) she attended therapy, counseling, and visitation when she was able. These are not grounds that indicate efforts to care for her children. Finally, she continues to have a relationship with the children's abusive father despite a no-contact order against him. Therefore, the evidence shows Rorena has not made an effort to care for her children.
Third, we again must point to Rorena's relationship with the children's abusive father. She has been either unwilling or unable to protect them from abuse in the past. We see no change in her circumstances that would indicate she is willing or able to protect them now.
Finally, the evidence shows the children are thriving in their new environments. Various progress reports and letters to the court indicate that they have adjusted well to their foster families and are making progress in both school and therapy. We must determine that terminating Rorena's parental rights and freeing these children for adoption is in their best interests.