Opinion
No. 6-116 / 05-2061
Filed February 15, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee County (North), Joel J. Kamp, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
John M. Wright of Wright Law Firm, Fort Madison, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Short, County Attorney, and David Andrusyk, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Robert J. Reding of Gary Hoyer Law Firm, L.C., Fort Madison, for father.
David J. Sallen, Fort Madison, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered en banc.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Julie and Ronald are the parents of Danial, born in 1996. Danial was removed from the home in September 1997 due to the denial of critical care and lack of supervision by the mother. There was broken glass on the floor, the plumbing did not work, and the house was infested with cockroaches. Danial had very high levels of lead in his blood. Danial was adjudicated to be a child in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c) (1997) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent's failure to supervise).
Ronald voluntarily consented to the termination of his parental rights. He is not a party to this appeal.
Danial was returned to Julie's care on three occasions, but she was unable to maintain a safe and sanitary home over an extended period of time. Julie has been diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. She has a criminal history of theft and assault. Julie made no progress in improving her parenting skills. Danial has been in foster care continuously since September 2002.
Julie was subsequently arrested on drug charges. She is currently serving a five-year sentence. In October 2005, the State filed a petition seeking termination of Julie's parental rights. The juvenile court terminated her rights under section 232.116(1)(f) (2005) (child is four or older, CINA, removed for at least twelve months, and cannot be returned home). The court noted that Julie was unable to meet Danial's needs, and that it was in his best interests to terminate her parental rights. Julie appeals.
II. Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re R.E.K.F., 698 N.W.2d 147, 149 (Iowa 2005). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). Our primary concern is the best interest of the child. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
III. Best Interests
Julie asserts that termination of her parental rights is not in Danial's best interests. She states that they had a bond which continued even after he was removed from her care. The paramount consideration in parental termination proceedings is the best interests of the child. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). In seeking out those best interests, we look to the child's long-range as well as immediate interests. Id. We consider a parent's past performance because it may indicate the quality of care the parent is capable of providing in the future. Id.
Julie had many opportunities to demonstrate that she could provide for Danial's needs, but she was unable to maintain a safe, secure, and sanitary home for him. Despite years of services, Julie was unable to maintain a suitable home for her child. Also, Julie made no progress in improving her parenting skills. We conclude termination of Julie's parental rights is in Danial's best interests.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.