Opinion
No. 3-600 / 03-1092
Filed September 10, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Constance Cohen, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their children. AFFIRMED.
Jesse Macro of Kuntz, Laughlin Macro, Des Moines, for mother.
Edward Bull and Jeffrey Mains, Des Moines, for father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Celene Coffman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Heather Dickinson, West Des Moines, for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their children. They contend the court erred in denying their motion to continue the termination hearing. They also contend the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the grounds for termination and that termination is in the best interest of the children. We review these claims de novo. In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002).
The mother has two children; a boy, born in 1996, and a girl, born in 2002. The father in this case is the biological father of only the girl. The children were removed from the care of their mother in October 2002 because the daughter was born testing positive for amphetamines. The mother admitted to using methamphetamine three times in the previous month, but contends this was the only time she had used illegal substances. Both the mother and father were observed by the hospital staff as having open sores on their arms, an indication of methamphetamine abuse. Additionally, the son was able to describe seeing his mother and his sister's father using drugs.
The parents did not follow through on their substance abuse treatment recommendations as provided in the case permanency plan. The mother failed to participate in drug screens twenty-six times out of the thirty-two times requested. She tested positive for drug use on three occasions in late 2002. The father failed to participate in drug screens thirty of the thirty-four times requested. He tested positive for methamphetamines once. He has one conviction for possession of methamphetamine.
Neither the mother nor father was employed until a few weeks prior to the termination hearing, when the mother obtained a job cleaning highway rest area facilities. They lived together in a home paid for by the mother's husband. However, he stopped making mortgage payments, and at the time of termination, foreclosure proceedings were commenced.
We conclude the grounds for termination were proved by clear and convincing evidence. The mother and father's parental rights to their daughter were terminated pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(b), (d), (h), and (l) (2003). The mother's parental rights to her son were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) and (l) (2003). Termination is appropriate under section 232.116(1)(d) where:
(1) The court has previously adjudicated the child to be a child in need of assistance after finding the child to have been physically or sexually abused or neglected as the result of the acts or omissions of one or both parents, or the court has previously adjudicated a child who is a member of the same family to be a child in need of assistance after such a finding.
(2) Subsequent to the child in need of assistance adjudication, the parents were offered or received services to correct the circumstance which led to the adjudication, and the circumstance continues to exist despite the offer or receipt of services.
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(d). There is no dispute that the first element has been met. Instead, the parents contend the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that they were offered or received services to correct the circumstances that led to adjudication, and that the circumstances continue to exist.
We conclude reasonable efforts were made to correct the circumstances that led to adjudication. The parents' failure to take advantage of these services or otherwise remedy the problems leading to removal of the children has resulted in the termination of their parental rights. Their substance abuse problems remain largely unaddressed, and they have failed to demonstrate an ability to adequately care for themselves, let alone their children. 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). Accordingly, we need not address the parents' other arguments.
The parents next argue termination is not in the best interest of the children because the children are in a relative placement. Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(a) states that the court need not terminate parental rights if the child is in the legal custody of a relative. However, section 232.116(3)(a) is permissive, not mandatory. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). The juvenile court has the discretion to apply this section, and not terminate parental rights based on the circumstances before it and the best interests of the children. Id. The court concluded termination is in the best interest of the children for the foregoing reasons, and we concur.
Finally, the parents contend the court erred in denying their motion to continue the termination hearing after a new guardian ad litem was appointed one day prior to the hearing. We review the court's order denying the parent's motion for an abuse of discretion. In re C.W., 554 N.W.2d 279, 281 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court exercises its discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. State v. Sayles, 662 N.W.2d 1, 8 (Iowa 2003). As the court's denial of the parents' motion was not unreasonable, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion. AFFIRMED.