Opinion
No. 5-125 / 04-2060
Filed February 24, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karla J. Fultz, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to C.R. and M.R. AFFIRMED.
Jesse Macro, Des Moines, for mother-appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Faye Jenkins, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Robert Rehkemper, Urbandale, for the father.
Karl Wolle, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for the children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Cynthia appeals the termination of her parental rights to Chelsea, born in 1996 and Matthew, born in 1998. She contends that termination was not in the children's best interests. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). We disagree.
Our de novo review of the record reveals the following facts. Cynthia has a history of drug use and depression. After the drug use came to light, the Department of Human Services cited Cynthia for denial of critical care and failure to supervise her children. She underwent treatment in 2002; the children were allowed to remain with her. She stated she had not used illegal drugs since then.
She began using illegal drugs at the age of twelve and used them continuously from ages fifteen through twenty-one. She used them intermittently thereafter. Following the initiation of this proceeding, she was diagnosed with bipolar manic depressive disorder and anxiety disorder.
In 2003, Cynthia moved from one county to a domestic abuse shelter in another. In the process, she lost her medical assistance papers and her children began to severely act out. Cynthia contacted the Department for assistance with both problems. Following a mediation session, she was advised that the children's medical needs would be met if she voluntarily transferred them to the Department's custody. Cynthia agreed. The children were removed and placed in foster care. Later, Matthew was placed in the care of his father and Chelsea was transferred to a psychiatric medical institution for children (PMIC) in Davenport.
Meanwhile, the Department instructed Cynthia to stabilize her life. By the time of the termination hearing fourteen months later, employees determined that she had made "minimal progress at best" toward this goal. She lost several jobs, was living in cramped quarters with relatives, and had not begun therapy to address her mental health issues. In addition, she lacked transportation and had difficulty attending weekly visits with Matthew let alone long distance visits with her daughter in Davenport. A service provider who supervised visits with Matthew testified,
Her last visit with Chelsea was three months before the termination hearing.
Cynthia has not showed consistency. Especially within the last month, I have seen a decline. Basically, zero consistency, especially within her visits. This is concerning. As I stated earlier, her lack of follow-through is detrimental to Matthew, and I feel that if it continues, it can only do more harm to this child.
A Department social worker testified it was in the best interests of the children to terminate Cynthia's parental rights. She stated,
In the past year, we have made two requests of Cynthia in order for her to provide for her children the necessary basic needs, which would be shelter, medical insurance, food, housing. We to date still have not had any of those requests met due to those issues not being addressed or met. It continues to be a problem for Chelsea, due to the fact that Chelsea has earned her privileges to have overnights and come home, yet she has nowhere to come home to, which then creates problems for Chelsea, and she starts acting out.
Even Cynthia recognized she was not in a position to immediately have the children returned to her. She testified, "I hope to be where I need to be within the next thirty to sixty days." As the statutory time frames preceding termination had elapsed without resolution of key problems, and the mother's actions were having a detrimental effect on both children, we conclude termination of Cynthia's parental rights to Chelsea and Matthew was in their best interests.
In reaching this conclusion, we have considered the fact that Matthew was placed with a relative. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3(a) (2003). While termination is not mandated in this circumstance, we agree with the juvenile court that termination would afford Matthew a measure of certainty about his future. Notably, Matthew's father stated he would allow Cynthia to continue having visits with Matthew in the event her parental rights were terminated. This is an equitable resolution of a difficult situation.