Opinion
No. 5-344 / 05-0255
Filed April 28, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Keokuk County, Lucy J. Gamon, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her two sons. AFFIRMED.
Michael Fisher of the Fisher Law Office, Oskaloosa, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and John Schroeder, County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Joel Yates of Clements Law Firm, Oskaloosa, for children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
Bobbi is the mother of Blade, who was born in 2001, and Rylee, who was born in 2002. The family first came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) in January of 2003, when it received information that Bobbi and her paramour, Justin, were using drugs in front of the children. The children were voluntarily placed with their maternal grandmother at this time. On March 10, 2003, the children were adjudicated to be in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2003) based on their parents' failure properly to supervise them. The children also suffered from a variety of growth and developmental problems. Upon the juvenile court's order, the State subsequently filed a petition to terminate Bobbi's parental rights to the children. Following a hearing on that petition, the court terminated Bobbi's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h) (child three or younger, cannot be returned to parent's custody). Bobbi appeals from this order.
The children, however, were later removed from the grandmother's care after Bobbi's live-in paramour, Justin, was arrested, along with the grandmother's paramour, for drug-related charges on June 6, 2003.
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).
On appeal, Bobbi first maintains the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the children could not be returned to her custody. Second, she asserts reasonable efforts were not made to allow her and the children to reunify. We address each contention in turn.
We first conclude clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court's conclusion that to return Blade and Rylee to Bobbi's custody would subject them to a high risk of adjudicatory harm, primarily due to the dangers attendant to Bobbi's long history of drug use. In a 2003 substance abuse evaluation, Bobbi admitted to a seven-year history of using marijuana and abusing prescription drugs. After the evaluation she was admitted to extended outpatient treatment; however, she was discharged due to her continuing drug use, noncompliance, and failure to attend appointments. Bobbi was also unsuccessfully discharged from inpatient treatment for failure to attend appointments, and she had a relapse in December of 2003. By the time of the termination hearing, Bobbi was only seeing a substance abuse counselor once per month and was not participating in AA or NA. In addition, Bobbi has shown poor judgment in her relationships. Despite her own drug issues, Bobbi continues to live with her paramour, Justin, who himself has a substantial history of drug abuse. In September of 2004, Justin tested positive for methamphetamine.
We next reject Bobbi's general contention that reasonable efforts toward reunification were not made by the State. The termination order contains an extensive list of the services offered to Bobbi, including a variety of drug treatments and evaluations, counseling services, parenting skills services, housing assistance, and mental health treatment. Despite the wealth of services provided to Bobbi, it remained the consensus of service providers that she had not progressed to a point at which the children could be immediately returned to her custody. In fact, her visits had not even progressed to unsupervised visits. Accordingly, while the State provided adequate and reasonable services, Bobbi had not taken advantage of them sufficiently to enable Blade and Rylee to return to her custody.
Moreover, we reject Bobbi's specific assertion that she was not provided reasonable visitation opportunities with the children. DHS social worker Sharon Lehn testified as to the reasons for denying Bobbi's requests for additional, unsupervised visits, including Bobbi's substance abuse concerns, poor parental decision-making, inclination to challenge DHS guidelines, and poor communication regarding the children between her and Justin. These all played a role in the amount and length of visits offered to Bobbi. More specifically, Lehn testified that despite the fact that Bobbi had apparently been drug-free for at least six months by the time the termination petition was filed, Bobbi's lengthy history of drug use, nine years, was a factor in delaying unsupervised visits. Finally, she noted that due to Bobbi's choice to continue residing with Justin, who had recently tested positive for methamphetamine, her visitation rights could not be separated from his status. We conclude this testimony adequately explained DHS's decision-making process regarding Bobbi's visitation with Blade and Rylee. We therefore affirm the termination of Bobbi's parental rights.
DHS standard policy is that parents cannot obtain unsupervised visitations until the parent has proven a minimum drug-free period of six months.