Opinion
No. 3-990 / 03-1425.
Filed January 14, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary Jane Sokolovske, Judge.
A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to three of their children. AFFIRMED.
Molly Joly, Sioux City, for appellants.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas S. Mullin, County Attorney, and Dewey Sloan, Assistant County Attorney, appellee-State.
Mercedes Ivener, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Miller, JJ.
A mother and father appeal a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights to three of their children. They contend (1) the juvenile court erred in denying their motion to continue the termination hearing, (2) the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite them with their children, and (3) the State did not prove the statutory elements necessary for termination by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm the juvenile court.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Rhonda E. and Frederick B. are the unmarried parents of four children. The parents have been involved with the Department of Human Services (DHS) since 1997. Their parental rights to their oldest child were terminated in July 1998 after they failed to benefit from the services they were offered. Frederick has also had his parental rights terminated to two other children born to two different women. One termination occurred in May 1999 and the other termination occurred in November 2000.
The three children at issue in this appeal are Dominick, born July 23, 1999, Isaiah, born December 4, 2000, and Tyrone born December 10, 2001. A child in need of assistance (CINA) petition was filed in January 2001 regarding Dominick and Isaiah. At that time there were ongoing concerns about the hygiene of the children, the administration of medicines for the children, the cleanliness of the home, and the parents' lack of finances to meet the children's basic needs. The juvenile court dismissed the CINA petition in April 2001, after finding that clear and convincing evidence did not exist to warrant adjudication of the two children.
On January 3, 2003, Dominick, Isaiah, and Tyrone were removed from the custody of their parents by Sioux City Police Officers. When the removal occurred, Rhonda and Frederick were being evicted from their home for not keeping it safe and clean. It was also reported that Rhonda left all three children alone when she temporarily left the residence. The juvenile court noted the following regarding the family home:
[T]he Child Protective Services investigator observed that the family residence was filthy, there was discarded food on the floor and very little food in the residence. The bathroom sink and bathtub were both plugged, with stale water standing in both. The entire residence had an odor of urine. The residence did not contain adequate sleeping arrangements for the children. All three children were required to sleep on one mattress in one of the bedrooms.
At the removal hearing, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that the children were, at the time of their removal, in imminent danger. The court also found the children would continue to be in imminent danger if they were returned to the care and custody of their parents. On March 14, 2003, the children were adjudicated CINA.
On March 26, 2003, the State filed a petition to terminate Rhonda and Frederick's parental rights to Dominick, Isaiah, and Tyrone based on Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) (2003) (child CINA for neglect, circumstances continue to exist despite receipt of services) and (g) (child CINA, parents' right to another child were terminated, parent does not respond to services). Following a hearing, the court terminated Rhonda and Frederick's parental rights by order entered August 12, 2003. Rhonda and Frederick appeal.
II. Scope of Review
We review a motion for continuance under an abuse of discretion standard and will only reverse if injustice will result to the party desiring the continuance. In the Interest of C.W., 554 N.W.2d 279, 281 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). Denial of a motion to continue must be unreasonable under the circumstances before we will reverse. Id. We review the termination proceedings de novo. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1993). Our primary concern is the best interests of the children. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
III. Discussion
Rhonda and Frederick first claim the juvenile court erred in denying their motion to continue the termination hearing for ninety days. They claim good cause existed for a continuance because it would have allowed them time to find employment. We reject this assignment of error. Both parents have been chronically unemployed since the DHS first came in contact with them back in 1997. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant the motion to continue.
Rhonda and Frederick next contend that the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite them with their children. We find error was not preserved on this issue; however, even if the parents had preserved error, the record reveals the parents received services for an extensive period of time. Rhonda and Frederick have been involved with the DHS since 1997. Some of the services they have been offered include: parent skill development, individual counseling, and recommendations from a social investigation. They received services prior to termination of their parental rights to their oldest child. Rhonda and Frederick also received services for several months prior to the removal of the children in January 2003. Despite the offer of services, they were unable to modify their situation sufficiently to avoid removal of these children. Rhonda and Frederick have been unable to maintain consistent employment. They have demonstrated they are unable to secure safe and stable housing. We find that additional services would not alleviate the problems facing Rhonda and Frederick within a reasonable period of time.
Rhonda and Frederick also claim that the statutory grounds for termination were not supported by clear and convincing evidence. To support their claim they point to two previous child protective assessments that concluded that the children were receiving adequate care. The first assessment was completed on November 6, 2001, and the second assessment was completed on July 24, 2002. However, the three children were not removed from the parental home until January 3, 2003. By that time, the family home was in complete disarray and the living conditions were deplorable. Regardless of how the children were living in late 2001 or the middle of 2002, we find that the children were living in an unsafe and dangerous environment by the beginning of 2003. Moreover, we note that neither parent has been able to secure stable employment or provide a suitable home for the children. The parents continue to live with Frederick's mother in a one-bedroom apartment. Both parents have failed to demonstrate the ability or willingness to provide reasonable care and adequate shelter for their children. The parents have not had visitation with the children since February 2003 because of the children's extreme reaction to visitation by the mother and father. These children should not have to wait any longer for responsible parenting. They deserve permanency and stability.
We conclude that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that Rhonda and Frederick's parental rights should be terminated. Termination of their parental rights clearly serves the children's best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court.