Opinion
No. 5-803 / 05-1461
Filed November 9, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Constance Cohen, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A.R.P. appeals from the juvenile court's decision terminating her parental rights with respect to A.P. AFFIRMED.
Nancy Pietz, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Stephanie Brown, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Nicole Garbis Nolan, Des Moines, for minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Mahan and Hecht, JJ.
A.R.P. appeals from the juvenile court's decision terminating her parental rights with respect to A.P.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
A.P. was born in October 2004. A.R.P. is her mother. A.P. was removed from parental care and placed in temporary foster care on November 19, 2004, following A.R.P.'s arrest and incarceration on drug charges. In February 2005, A.P. was adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(d) (parent has physically abused or neglected child or is imminently likely to do so), (c)(2) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent's failure to exercise care in supervising child), and (h) (parent's mental capacity or condition or drug or alcohol abuse results in child not receiving adequate care). The resulting dispositional order entered in March 2005, continued A.P.'s out-of-home placement and provided for services intended to facilitate A.P.'s return to A.R.P.'s custody. The services provided included Iowa Department of Human Services child welfare services, court-ordered supervision for A.R.P., Minority Youth and Family Initiative Project, drug screening, substance abuse evaluation, supervised visitation, paternity testing, and outpatient treatment for substance abuse at the House of Mercy. At a June 7, 2005, review hearing, the juvenile court found that these services had proved unavailing and the substance abuse and parenting issues necessitating A.P.'s adjudication remained unresolved.
As a result, on June 24, 2005, the State filed a petition to terminate A.R.P.'s parental rights with respect to A.P. on multiple grounds. Following a hearing on the merits of the State's petition, the juvenile court terminated A.R.P.'s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) (child CINA for physical or sexual abuse (or neglect), circumstances continued despite receipt of services), 232.116(1)(e) (child CINA, child removed for six months, parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child), 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), and 232.116(1)( l) (child CINA, parent has substance abuse problem, child cannot be returned within a reasonable time).
On appeal, A.R.P. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court's decision terminating her parental rights.
II. Standard of Review.
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). The grounds for termination must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). If the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we need only find that the evidence supports termination on one of the grounds cited by the juvenile court to affirm. In re R.K., 649 N.W.2d 18, 19 (Iowa Ct.App. 2000). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
III. Merits.
As noted earlier, the juvenile court terminated A.R.P.'s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)( l). To terminate on this ground, we must find: (1) A.P. was adjudicated a child in need of assistance, and her custody has been transferred for out-of-home placement; (2) A.R.P. has a severe, chronic substance abuse problem and presents a danger to herself or others as evidenced by prior acts; (3) there is clear and convincing evidence that A.R.P.'s prognosis indicates that A.P. will not be able to be returned to parental custody within a reasonable period of time considering A.P.'s age and need for a permanent home. Id.
"When the issue is a parent's drug addiction, we must consider the treatment history of the parent to gauge the likelihood that the parent will be in a position to parent the child in the foreseeable future." In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). "Where the parent has been unable to rise above the addiction and experience sustained sobriety in a noncustodial setting, and establish the essential support system to maintain sobriety, there is little hope of success in parenting." Id.
There is no dispute concerning the requisite CINA adjudication and out-of-home placement. The record includes abundant evidence indicating A.R.P. suffered from a chronic and severe substance abuse problem at the time of A.P.'s removal from parental custody and subsequent adjudication. The record also includes testimony and reports from A.R.P.'s probation officer and service providers establishing A.R.P.'s continued substance abuse, as well as her sporadic attendance and failure to complete court-ordered drug treatment and testing. Moreover, there is evidence A.R.P. continued to reside with family members who were using illegal drugs while she was purportedly undergoing treatment for her own substance abuse. Under these circumstances, we find A.R.P.'s chronic substance abuse and unsuccessful treatment efforts present a danger to herself, as well as A.R. See In re J.K., 495 N.W.2d 108, 113 (Iowa 1993) (finding that parents who have chronic, severe substance abuse problems "clearly" present a danger to their children). Based on our de novo review, we find clear and convincing evidence supporting termination of A.R.P.'s parental rights with respect to A.P. pursuant to section 232.116(1)( l).
We also note testimony and reports from service providers concerning A.R.P.'s poor drug treatment prognosis. Her failure to cooperate with drug treatment providers and continued use of illegal drugs are strong evidence indicating that she will not successfully resolve her substance abuse issues within a reasonable period of time. A.P. has been in various out-of-home placements for virtually all of her life. The State's efforts to facilitate her return to parental custody have been repeatedly frustrated by A.R.P.'s continued drug abuse and failed treatment efforts. At some point, A.P.'s rights and needs must rise above the rights and needs of her mother. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000). A.P.'s permanency need not be indefinitely deferred based on the faint prospects of A.R.P.'s successful treatment for substance abuse.
In addition to the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights, we consider the best interests of the child. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d at 780. In assessing the child's best interests, we must consider what the future holds for the child if the child is returned to the parent's care. In re J.K., 495 N.W.2d at 110. To determine what is in the best interests of the child, evidence of the parent's past performance is the best indicator of the quality of future care for the child. Id. (citing In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812, 814 (Iowa 1992). For the same reasons cited above, we find A.P.'s best interests are served by terminating A.R.P.'s parental rights. The juvenile court's decision terminating A.R.P.'s parental rights with respect to A.P. is affirmed.