Opinion
No. 3-795 / 03-1365
Filed October 29, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County, L. Vern Robinson, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. AFFIRMED.
Deborah M. Skelton, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, David C. Thompson, County Attorney, and Anthony Janney, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Pamela Jo Lewis, Cedar Rapids, for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, P.J., and Mahan and Eisenhauer, JJ.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter. She contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. We review her claim de novo. In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002).
The mother's parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(e) and (l) (2003). We need only find termination proper on one ground to affirm. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). In order to terminate pursuant to section 232.116(1)(e), the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence the following elements:
1) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
(2) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child's parents for a period of at least six consecutive months.
(3) There is clear and convincing evidence that the parents have not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child during the previous six consecutive months and have made no reasonable efforts to resume care of the child despite being given the opportunity to do so. For the purposes of this subparagraph, "significant and meaningful contact" includes but is not limited to the affirmative assumption by the parents of the duties encompassed by the role of being a parent. This affirmative duty, in addition to financial obligations, requires continued interest in the child, a genuine effort to complete the responsibilities prescribed in the case permanency plan, a genuine effort to maintain communication with the child, and requires that the parents establish and maintain a place of importance in the child's life.
The mother does not dispute the first two elements of this section have been met, but contends the State failed to prove she failed to maintain significant and meaningful contact with the child.
We conclude termination is proper under section 232.116(1)(e). The mother admittedly has a five-year history of drug abuse. She had consistently used marijuana, amphetamines, cocaine, and methamphetamine. The child was removed from the mother's custody when the mother was arrested after controlled substances and drug paraphernalia were discovered in her car. The child has been in foster care since April 2002. The mother did not adequately address her substance abuse during the pendency of this case, refusing to submit to drug testing or testing positive for drug use. The mother did maintain brief periods of sobriety, but was discharged from treatment for failing to follow through with appointments and services. The mother also admitted having problems with depression that remain untreated. Supervised visits between the mother and child occurred once a week from December 2002 until May 2003. However, she again used drugs and failed to attend visitation with her daughter in the three weeks prior to the termination hearing. The person supervising the visits didn't believe mother was committed to "do the hard work of parenting." The mother did not attend the termination hearing. She was unemployed and her whereabouts were unknown. Her failure to make a genuine effort to complete the requirements of the case permanency plan and maintain a place of importance in the child's life warrant termination of her parental rights. The mother failed to maintain significant and meaningful contact with the child as defined in section 232.116(1)(e)(3). Accordingly, we affirm.