Opinion
No. 2-630 / 01-1951
Filed October 16, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Brian L. Michaelson, Associate Juvenile Judge.
Mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to seven children. AFFIRMED.
John Moeller of O'Brien, Galvin Moeller, Sioux City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Marilyn Lantz, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas Mullin, County Attorney, and Marleen Loftus, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Michelle Dreibelbis of Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Hecht, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Maria G. appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to Joanna G., born September 30, 1987, Carlos G., born October 25, 1989, Jose G., born October 25, 1990, Ana R., born December 14, 1992, Jan R., born December 14, 1992, Marikza G., born December 16, 1996, and Victor G., born February 5, 1999. We affirm.
Maria and her husband, Ernesto G., are undocumented foreign nationals who illegally entered the United States in 1990. In 1995 the family first came to the attention of the Department of Human Services (DHS) when Ernesto was determined to have physically abused Maria's two-year-old nephew. In February of 1999, an investigation resulted in a confirmed case of denial of critical care/failure to provide proper supervision after reports of the children's poor hygiene and Ernesto's drug use.
On September 7, 1999, the State filed a petition alleging the children to be in need of assistance (CINA), asserting that Ernesto had beaten the children with a belt and locked them in a room for punishment, the home was filthy and cockroach infested, and Maria was unable or unwilling to protect the children from Ernesto's violence. The court later adjudicated the children CINA pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b), (c)(2), and (g) (1999). The court placed the children in foster care.
On August 6, 2001, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate Maria's and Ernesto's parental rights to all seven children. Following a trial, the court granted the petition and terminated the parents' rights to the children. It terminated Maria's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(c), (e), (g), and (h) (2001). Maria appeals from this termination.
Ernesto does not appeal from the order terminating his parental rights.
Now codified at Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (f), (h), and (i) (Supp. 2001).
We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). While the district court terminated Maria's parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we will affirm if at least one ground has been proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child . In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
We conclude the court properly terminated Maria's parental rights to Joanna, Carlos, Jose, Jan, Ana, and Marikza under section 232.116(1)(e), which requires clear and convincing evidence that (1) the child is four or older, (2) the child has been adjudicated CINA, (3) the child has been removed for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, and (4) the child cannot be returned to the parent's custody.
The juvenile court wrote an extremely thoughtful and thorough ruling in this case. We will not restate the facts extensively set out in that opinion; rather we will highlight several factors that lead us to agree with the juvenile court that the above elements were met by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the children's best interests.
First, the juvenile's court's concern that Maria did not take sufficient steps to prevent Ernesto from abusing the kids is borne out in the record. Several of the children related stories of Ernesto beating them with such objects as belts, brooms, electrical cords, and coat hangers. He locked them in a dark basement containing rats as punishment. Despite the clear evidence presented of these incidents, even at trial, Maria did not demonstrate through her testimony that she comprehended the gravity of Ernesto's abusive behavior.
Second, the record illustrates substantial concerns regarding Maria's employment and financial situation. She appears to rely heavily on relatives for financial support. This financial condition has impacted the children as evidenced by their poor hygiene and inadequate nutrition. Third, prior to the children's removal Maria and Ernesto provided the children with rat and roach-infested living conditions. Fourth, Maria appears to have little understanding of the special needs and health issues of the children. With the exception of Jose, all of the children suffer from neurofibromatosis, a genetic disease which causes tumors that can lead to, among other things, learning disabilities. The children have been diagnosed with such problems as attention deficit disorder, congenital syphilis, depression, scoliosis, and developmental delays. However, when examined at trial Maria was unable to identify any of the special needs her children possess. We conclude Maria cannot adequately address these problems if she does not understand their existence or impact.
Fifth, we cannot be certain that Ernesto will not return to the United States and attempt to rejoin the family if Maria should regain custody of the children. Ernesto apparently has been taken into custody and is subject to deportation. However, in the past he has illegally reentered the country after being returned to Mexico. Finally, by and large the children behaved better and showed more progress when in the care of foster parents. Trial placements with Maria proved unsuccessful because the children regressed while under her supervision. Accordingly, on our de novo review of the record, we conclude these six children cannot safely be returned to Maria's care, and that the elements of 232.116(1)(e) were met by clear and convincing evidence.
Moreover, we also conclude the court properly terminated Maria's parental rights to Victor under section 232.116(1)(h) which requires clear and convincing proof that (1) the child has been adjudicated CINA based on a finding of physical or sexual abuse or neglect, (2) the abuse or neglect constituted imminent danger to the child, and (3) the offer or receipt of services would not correct the conditions which led to the abuse or neglect.
Maria was provided myriad services in order to help her regain custody of her children, and she did appear to make at least some progress toward that goal. However, like the district court, we find the progress to be insufficient to support a finding that the conditions which led to the children's abuse would be corrected by services. Maria holds to her denial of Ernesto's severe abuse of the children, the domestic violence, and their woeful living conditions. Various individuals who provided that aid testified the children could not safely be returned to her home within the foreseeable future.
Accordingly, we affirm the termination orders as to all of the children.