Opinion
No. 3-362 / 03-0770
Filed July 10, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William A. Price, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights to her three children. AFFIRMED.
Bryan J. Tingle, Des Moines, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Celene Coffman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Rachael Seymore, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Todd Babich of Babich, Goldman, Cashatt Renzo, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee-father.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vogel, JJ.
Tanya, the mother of Raya, born in May of 1998, J'Tasha, born in June of 1999, and Johnny, born in December of 2000, has filed a petition on appeal challenging the April 9, 2003 order terminating her parental rights. The juvenile court terminated Tanya's parental rights under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(e), (f) and (l) (2003). Tanya contends the juvenile court erred in doing so. She asks the termination be reversed or the matter be returned for full briefing. The State has not addressed the issues raised by the mother but has filed a statement of nonresponse contending it defers to the record and termination order and that any response would only serve to reiterate the facts of the case. We affirm.
The two younger children have the same father. His parental rights have also been terminated but he has not appealed. The father of the older child was not notified of the termination proceedings. The juvenile court ordered that a subsequent proceeding be filed seeking to terminate his parental rights. Consequently this appeal does not deal with his rights.
In late 2000 Tanya left the three children with Elizabeth, who is the biological paternal grandmother of the two younger children. In April of 2002 the matter came before the juvenile court apparently on a complaint by Tanya's stepfather. The three children were found to be children in need of assistance, and their temporary legal custody was placed with Elizabeth with whom they had been residing. They were still living with Elizabeth at the time of the termination hearing. Elizabeth also had two other biological grandchildren living with her whose parental rights had been terminated and whom she had adopted. These children have the same biological father as the two younger children involved in this appeal.
Tanya has had problems with the abuse of illegal substances but has not had any arrests. There are two confirmed reports of child abuse that are confirmed, but not registered, for Tanya's failure to provide proper supervision of Raya.
Following the juvenile court involvement Tanya participated in five sessions with in-home services. Tanya did not submit a requested drug screen after a drug screen in February of 2002 tested positive for marijuana. It is not clear whether lack of financial resources may have been a factor in her failure to obtain the screens. Tanya participated in a substance abuse program at the House of Mercy in August of 2002, but did not complete the course of treatment. Tanya has visited with the children since January of 2002. It was reported that her parenting skills were appropriate and she was knowledgeable as to appropriate discipline and health and bonding issues. However, the visits were not consistent. From the reported exchange at the termination hearing one could conclude that the parents may have wanted to consent to the termination of their parental rights and that they thought leaving the children with Elizabeth while they found housing was appropriate. The termination report indicated these factors as well as a need for a permanent placement for the children were reasons to recommend termination of their parental rights.
Neither Tanya nor the father of the younger two children appeared at the termination hearing, though there was evidence they knew about it. There also was discussion that the parents had both considered consenting to termination with Elizabeth adopting the children as she had adopted the father's two other children.
At the termination hearing there were questions about the advisability of continued placement with Elizabeth. Apparently it had been made known to the department by the maternal step-grandfather, who picked the children up at Elizabeth's home. He testified at the termination hearing that there were times when Elizabeth let Tanya and her husband watch the children.
The attorneys for the parents resisted any action to remove the children from Elizabeth's care, arguing the parents understood that Elizabeth would be adopting the children. The guardian ad litem was not concerned about the placement, arguing that the parental rights should be terminated. The maternal grandmother and maternal grandfather indicated they would take Raya but not the younger children.
The juvenile court expressed its frustration about the situation, not understanding why the children had not been removed earlier.
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1993). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999); In re E.K., 568 N.W.2d 829, 830 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we need only find grounds to terminate under one of the sections cited by the juvenile court to affirm. S.R., 600 N.W.2d at 64; In re A.J., 553 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996).
Tanya first contends her parental rights should not have been terminated under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e). She contends the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she did not maintain significant and meaningful contact with the children. She argues the reports show there is a strong bond between her and the children, and that she has taken an active role preparing the children for her return in that she has obtained a housing unit large enough for all the children to live in. The juvenile court found Tanya's visits were not consistent. We agree and affirm on this issue.
Tanya next contends there was not clear and convincing evidence to support termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f), in that the State failed to show the children could not be returned to her care at the time of the termination hearing. We disagree. Tanya has a serious substance abuse problem such as would put the children in danger if returned to her care. We affirm on this issue.
Tanya next contends there is not clear and convincing evidence supporting termination under Iowa Code Section 232.116(1)(l), in that while she had a previous substance abuse problem, there is not evidence she is a chronic substance abuser or that she is a threat to herself and others. Rather, she advances the evidence suggests she had good judgment and was making responsible decisions, in that she had housing and was employed. We disagree with Tanya's argument on this issue. There is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
Tanya further contends termination of her parental rights is not in the children's best interest. We disagree and affirm on this issue.
We have considered the other issues raised and find them to be without merit. We affirm the termination and deny Tanya's petition for further briefing.