From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re A.N

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Oct 12, 2005
707 N.W.2d 336 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005)

Opinion

No. 5-690 / 05-1324

Filed October 12, 2005

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Kristin L. Hibbs, Judge.

Parents appeal from the juvenile court order terminating their parental rights. AFFIRMED.

H. Nick Gloe of Gloe Quint, Cedar Rapids, for appellant-mother.

Jean Lawrence of Aasgaard Lawrence, P.L.C., Marion, for appellant-father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Lance Heeren, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.

Carla Pearson, Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.


Ronda and Curtis appeal from a juvenile court order that terminated their parental rights to Alec and Alayha. Ronda also appeals from termination of her parental rights to Allena. Allena's biological father, Daniel, has not appealed from the termination of his parental rights. Upon our de novo review, we affirm.

I. Background Facts Proceedings

Ronda and Curtis are the parents of Alec, born in April of 1998, and Alayha, born in March of 2002. Ronda is also the mother and Daniel is the father of Allena, born in September of 1995.

Ronda has two other children not involved in this appeal. One child, Bekka, was given to Ronda's sister at birth. The other child was born in October of 2004 and placed up for adoption.

In September of 2000, the Department of Human Services (DHS) became involved with the family when neighbors found two-year-old Alec playing outdoors unsupervised in Charles City, Iowa. The neighbors returned Alec to his apartment and found his five-year-old sister asleep on the floor. After unsuccessful attempts to locate the children's parents, the neighbors called the police. The following month, Alec and Allena were adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA), and services were initiated for the family. The family moved to Cedar Rapids in January of 2001. Despite receiving services, Curtis and Ronda continued to put their children at risk by failing to adequately supervise them.

During the summer of 2002, the family moved to Missouri, leaving no forwarding address. The first CINA petition was dismissed on July 30, 2002. The parents and their children stayed with a friend in Missouri for about four months and then returned to Iowa.

The family again came to the attention of DHS after they returned to Iowa because of several reports that the parents were not properly supervising their children. A second CINA petition was filed in October of 2003, and the children were adjudicated children in need of assistance. On December 22, 2003, the children were removed from Ronda's home and placed in foster care after she left the children in the care of her brother, a convicted sex offender. In October of 2004, Ronda gave birth to another child. She then told her case manager that she had not had a child. Ronda eventually admitted that she had given birth. The baby was given up for adoption. Curtis is not the father of the child.

The State filed a petition to terminate Ronda's and Curtis' parental rights on March 22, 2005. Daniel was served a copy of the notice of hearing and petition for termination, but he did not appear at the termination hearing. Ronda did not attend the first day of the termination hearing. When she appeared for the second day of the trial, she was asked why she failed to attend. She did not have a reason. Following the termination hearing, the juvenile court terminated Ronda's, Curtis's, and Daniel's parental rights in an order filed August 5, 2005. Ronda and Curtis have appealed.

II. Scope and Standards of Review

We review termination proceedings de novo, and the grounds for termination must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1993); In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). In termination proceedings, we are primarily concerned with the best interests of the children. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). We look to the children's long-range as well as immediate best interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997).

III. Discussion

The juvenile court terminated Ronda's and Curtis' parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d) (2005) (child CINA for physical or sexual abuse or neglect, circumstances continue despite receipt of services), 232.116(1)(f) (child four or older, child CINA, removed from home for twelve of last eighteen months, and child cannot be returned home), and 232.116(1)(h) (child is three or younger, child CINA, removed from home for six of last twelve months, and child cannot be returned home).

The parents raise two issues on appeal. First, they contend the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the circumstances that led to the adjudication of the children as CINA continue to exist despite the provision of services. Second, they maintain that the State did not prove that the children could not be safely returned to their care. Both parents assert they have shown progress in their parenting abilities, and they contend they have relocated to residences suitable for the children. For the reasons which follow, we find no merit in their arguments.

Both Ronda and Curtis have significant criminal histories. The parents do not appear to like each other, and their unstable relationship has been marred by incidents of domestic abuse. The parents have separated and reconciled on several occasions. Their most recent separation occurred a few months before the termination hearing. Both parents lead transient lifestyles. On a number of occasions, they have failed to notify DHS of changes in their address even though they knew the children were still under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Sadly, there have been numerous founded or confirmed child abuse assessments concerning this family.

The termination order lists eleven separate and distinct founded or confirmed child abuse reports between June 1995 and January 2004.

Despite receiving a host of services over a period of almost four years, neither parent has complied with the case plan established for them. Ronda and Curtis have not implemented the parenting skills they have been taught, and they remain unwilling to admit that their behavior has harmed the children; instead, they blame their problems on the State's intervention. The parents have often displayed an unwillingness to cooperate with DHS workers. They remain unable or unwilling to make changes in their parenting styles or to make positive changes in their personal lives that would benefit their children.

The record reveals that the family has received or been offered family centered services, counseling with the children, protective daycare, psychological and substance abuse evaluations, parent education classes, relationship counseling, and mental health services.

The relationship between Ronda and Curtis is still volatile. The mother's current home is only suitable for short visits. The father only acquired housing one week before the termination hearing.

We find that clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court's conclusion that these children would still be at risk for adjudicatory harm if returned to either parent's care. Accordingly, we agree with the court's conclusion that the statutory grounds for termination have been met.

Even if the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights are met, the decision to terminate must be in the children's best interests. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). In considering children's best interests, we look to their long-range as well as immediate best interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d at 172. It is apparent that Ronda and Curtis are still unable to adequately supervise and parent their children. In addition, their failure to recognize that their past behavior has harmed their children significantly interferes with their ability to improve their parenting skills. We determine termination is in the children's best interests.

Because the statutory grounds for termination have been met, and termination of Ronda's and Curtis's parental rights is clearly in their children's best interests, we affirm the juvenile court's decision.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

In re A.N

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Oct 12, 2005
707 N.W.2d 336 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005)
Case details for

In re A.N

Case Details

Full title:IN THE INTEREST OF A.N., A.W., and A.W., Minor Children, R.N., Mother…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Oct 12, 2005

Citations

707 N.W.2d 336 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005)