Opinion
No. 5-368 / 05-0254
Filed May 25, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary Jane Sokolovske, Judge.
H.M. appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Douglas L. Roehrich, Sioux City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas S. Mullin, County Attorney, and Cindy L. Weber-Blair, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Richard Moeller, of Berenstein, Moore, Berenstein, Heffernan Moellen, L.L.P., Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Crystal appeals the termination of her parental rights to four children: D.C., born in 1996, G.H., born in 2000, K.H., born in 2001, and D.H., born in 2004. She contends termination was not in the children's best interests. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). On our de novo review, we disagree.
Crystal married Josh, a conceded drug abuser. He was the father of three of the children but is not a subject of this appeal.
The Department of Human Services became involved with the family after neighbors informed police that two small children were seen outside an apartment, wearing only diapers. They said this was not an isolated occurrence. Officers arrived at the apartment to find it in disarray. One officer noted cigarettes lying about the bedrooms, a broken windowpane, and "nails and broken furniture all over the floors," as well as the absence of clean clothing or bedding.
The three older children were placed with Josh's mother. Nine months later, the Department sought and obtained their removal from this home due to concerns of physical violence by the grandfather and lack of appropriate supervision by the grandmother.
Meanwhile, D.H. was born. The juvenile court ordered his removal shortly after his birth "to ensure his health and safety given the history of this family, the services that have previously been provided and the inability of the parents to maintain forward progress in reunifying with [the older children]."
Crystal initially cooperated with reunification services, graduating from supervised to unsupervised visitation. Her progress was short-lived. She began fighting with Josh during visits and, according to a Department social worker, "did not acknowledge that there were any concerns or issues that needed to be addressed, including the family dysfunction, Josh's continued use of chemicals — illegal chemicals and his inability to get a job and her continued support of his dysfunction." The social worker reported "[n]ot much has changed on this case due to extreme denial and resistance."
An in-home service provider seconded the Department employee's opinion, stating that, while Crystal initially made progress with services, she "relapsed" in her parenting efforts when her husband relapsed into drug use. She testified, "I don't believe that Crystal today is any — is any less in denial then she was when I seen her last October or November."
There is no question Crystal and her husband had the ability to be good parents. A psychological evaluation of Crystal revealed she had "a fairly strong and positive parenting alliance" with Josh and the two were "cooperative, communicative, and mutually respectful in the care of their children." However, in a social worker's words, they were "unable or unwilling to recognize [the children] need safe, stable home environments that puts their needs above the adults."
As for the children, their attachment to Crystal predictably varied with their ages. The oldest, a second-grader at the time of the termination hearing, had difficulty coming to terms with her situation. A therapist testified that she "struggles with a sense of loyalty to her family and feels that she is caught in the middle between her foster parents and her [mother and father]." The second and third children appeared to thrive in foster care, although K.H. showed signs of anxiety following visits with her mother. The fourth child had scant opportunity to develop a bond with his mother.
We agree with the district court that termination of Crystal's parental rights to these children was in their best interests. As the Department social worker opined, "placing the children back with either of their parents would just continue that dysfunction that they came out of."
AFFIRMED.
Huitink, J. concurs; Sackett, C.J., specially concurs.
I concur specially. I, too, would affirm the termination. I cannot, however, agree with the majority and the juvenile court that termination of these children's parental rights is in their best interest. One commentator suggested the best interests of children are met only if the most worthy are allowed to parent. The best interest of these children would be to live in a loving and supportive home with their birth parents. Obviously this is not possible. The children have suffered because of their parents' problems. Yet termination of parental rights carries with it its own sets of problems for the children. As the majority has carefully pointed out, the older children, now about nine and five, know their parents and have a bond with them. This bond does not evaporate because a judge signs an order terminating parental rights. What I have done here is chose what I determine at the present time to be the least detrimental of available situations for these children. I hope the children will find supportive and loving adoptive homes, but I realize this is not always possible and adoptions are not without problems.