Opinion
No. 5-282 / 05-0252
Filed April 28, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John G. Mullen, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her two daughters. AFFIRMED.
Patrick J. Kelly, Bettendorf, for appellant.
Thomas Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Gerda Lane, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
David Binegar, Davenport, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.
Erma is the mother of Tiante, who was born in July of 1997, and Alexis, who was born in December of 1999. Services were first offered to the family after it came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) in August 2001 based on Erma's "chaotic" lifestyle and Tiante's problem behaviors. The children were adjudicated to be in need of assistance (CINA) on September 18, 2003, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2003), based on Erma's failure to exercise a reasonable degree of care in supervising the children. On November 4, 2003, the State filed a petition requesting the termination of Erma's parental rights. Following a subsequent hearing, the court granted the petition and terminated her rights under sections 232.116(1)(e) and (f).
Erma appeals from this order. She maintains (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the court's decision to terminate and (2) termination was not in the best interests of the children.
We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). Our primary concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the children. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). While the district court terminated the 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).
Upon our de novo review of the record, we conclude the juvenile court properly terminated Erma's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f). The first three requirements for termination under this section are not in serious dispute. Thus, our task is to determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence that Alexis and Tiante cannot be returned to Erma's custody.
As noted, services were provided to the family starting in August of 2001. Family centered services were offered from that time until June of 2002, when the Building Blocks Program was offered to Erma. In October of 2002, Erma's unstable mental health led to her admission at a psychiatric unit, and she later attended the Vera French Mental Health Center day treatment program. Despite those services, significant concerns persisted as to Erma's ability to provide care and supervision for the children who were placed in foster care in May of 2003. Erma continued to have problems managing her health and her visits with the children were inconsistent. Service providers noted Erma had a limited knowledge of the children's need for a consistent routine, structure, discipline, and age-appropriate limits. She would become easily frustrated and sometimes hostile during visits with Tiante and Alexis. Thus, it appears that Erma was unable to internalize and act upon the skills taught by service providers.
On January 21, 2004, Erma was arrested and charged with third-degree sexual abuse of a fifteen-year-old boy and supplying alcohol to a person under age. Plans to transition Tiante and Alexis back to her home were put on hold. She later pled guilty to the sexual abuse charge and was sentenced to ten years in prison. As a result of the incident for which Erma was convicted, she became pregnant, and on May 14, 2004, she had a baby.
We find clear and convincing evidence in the record supporting the juvenile court's determination that Tiante and Alexis cannot be returned to Erma's custody. If placed in her custody, the children would be at high risk of adjudicatory harm. In addition, Erma is now incarcerated and does not anticipate a parole board hearing until July of 2005 at the earliest.
We further conclude termination is in Tiante's and Alexis' best interests. Prior to her incarceration, Erma was not able to take advantage of or benefit from services. There is no reason to believe this would change in the future. Moreover, her continuing mental health challenges, immature outlook on her parenting role, irresponsible lifestyle, and poor decision-making all support our conclusion that reunification is not in the best interests of Tiante and Alexis. We therefore affirm the termination order.