Opinion
No. 4-337 / 04-0417.
June 9, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Jane M. Mylrea, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. AFFIRMED.
Leslie Blair, Dubuque, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Fred H. McCaw, County Attorney, and Jean Becker, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Mary Kelley, Assistant Public Defender, Dubuque, for the minor child.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) (2003). She contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, the State failed to provide reasonable efforts toward reunification, and termination should have been pursued under section 232.116(1)(f). We review her claims de novo. In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002).
Termination is appropriate under section 232.116(1)(e) where:
(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.
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e). The mother does not dispute the first two elements have been met. Instead, she contends the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she failed to maintain significant and meaningful contact with the child.
The mother left A.S., born January 25, 2000, with her parents for most of the summer of 2003. The child was removed by court order from his mother's care on August 13, 2003. The mother tested positive for methamphetamine use on August 20, 2003 and failed to appear at the removal hearing on August 21, 2003. The child continues to live in his grandparents' home. Termination of parental rights was ordered on March 24, 2004.
The expectations of the court's order of adjudication were for the mother to have weekly visits for two hours depending on her compliance with services provided by the Department of Human Services (DHS) and clean U.A.s. Visitation would increase after the mother passed three drug screens. The mother missed visitations and service appointments. She has never had a visit with her son since June 2003. She tested positive for methamphetamine on random drug screens on all but one occasion. Although she was warned on numerous occasions that noncompliance with services would result in suspension of her visitation, the mother did not meet her expectations. Instead, the mother heavily used methamphetamines intravenously, only agreeing to treatment because she wanted to be left alone. It is clear from the record the mother has a severe substance abuse problem that has rendered her unable to have a meaningful relationship or maintain significant and meaningful contact with her son. We conclude the grounds for termination have been met.
The mother next contends she was not given the opportunity to maintain significant and meaningful contact with her son because the DHS refused to allow her any visitation until she tested negative for drug use three times. A challenge to the sufficiency of services should be raised in the course of the child in need of assistance proceedings. In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). Because the mother failed to do so, we find this issue has not been preserved for our review.
Finally, the mother contends the State should have sought termination under section 232.116(1)(f) instead, allowing her more time to pursue reunification with her child. However, the State has the authority to pursue termination under any grounds it sees fit. The juvenile court determines if the grounds for termination are met. While the law requires a "full measure of patience with troubled parents who attempt to remedy a lack of parenting skills," this patience has been built into the statutory scheme of chapter 232. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000). A child should not be forced to endlessly suffer in parentless limbo. See In re E.K., 568 N.W.2d 829, 831 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). At some point, the rights and needs of the child rise above the rights and needs of the parent. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). No additional time is warranted here.