Opinion
No. 4-340 / 04-0613.
June 9, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Brian L. Michaelson, Associate Juvenile Judge.
Mother appeals order terminating her parental rights to daughter. AFFIRMED.
Irene Schrunk, Sioux City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas S. Mullin, County Attorney, and David Dawson, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Joseph Kertels of the Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, for child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Hecht and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Sheila is the mother of D.D., born in September 1997. D.D. came to the attention of the Department of Human Services (DHS) because of Sheila's illegal drug use. On August 21, 2002, D.D. was removed by ex parte order, and on October 11, 2002, the juvenile court adjudicated D.D. to be in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b) (parent has neglected child or is imminently likely to do so), 232.2(6)(c) (child is likely to suffer harm due to mental injury or the parent's failure to exercise care in supervising child), and 232.2(6)(n) (parent's mental condition and drug or alcohol abuse results in child not receiving adequate care) (2001). Following a later hearing on the State's petition, the court terminated Sheila's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) (child CINA for physical or sexual abuse or neglect, circumstances continue despite receipt of services), 232.116(1)(f) (child 4 or older, child CINA, removed from home for twelve of last eighteen months, and child cannot be returned home), 232.116(1)(g) (child CINA, parent's rights to another child were terminated, parent does not respond to services), and 232.116(1)(k) (child CINA, parent has chronic mental illness, child cannot be returned within a reasonable time) (2003). Sheila appeals this order.
The parental rights of D.D.'s putative father, J.G., were also terminated but are not a subject of this appeal.
We review termination orders do 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 child. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
On appeal, Sheila asserts that clear and convincing evidence does not support the termination order, she should have been given an additional six months to make the necessary changes to regain custody of D.D., and that termination was not in the best interests of the child. On our de novo review, we conclude clear and convincing evidence supports the termination. D.D. was adjudicated CINA in October of 2002 after being removed from her mother's care because of neglect due to Sheila's mental health issues and drug and alcohol use. Sheila has a long history of substance abuse, mental health issues, and suicide attempts. Sheila was offered a wide variety of services including urinalysis, psychiatric treatment with several providers, chemical dependency evaluation at Mercy Behavioral Care, intensive outpatient treatment at Mercy Behavioral Care, Crittenton Center's Parent Survival Program providing parent skill development and supervised visitation, chemical dependency treatment at Heartland Counseling, substance abuse aftercare treatment at Heartland Counseling, individual therapy, and therapy sessions with D.D. Despite the receipt of these services, significant concerns remain regarding Sheila's ability to safely parent D.D. Among those obstacles to reunification are her lack of honesty and cooperation with service providers and her failure to abstain from alcohol.
At trial, Ms. Westin, Sheila's therapist at Siouxland Mental Health, testified on Sheila's behalf. Ms. Westin had been counseling Sheila for three months and found she was highly motivated to regain custody of her daughter. Ms. Westin then testified that she saw no reason D.D. cannot be returned to Sheila; however, the record indicates that Ms. Westin did not have contact with other service providers and based her evaluation solely on what Sheila told her. None of the other service providers recommended D.D. be returned to Sheila's care. Furthermore, despite Ms. Westin's testimony regarding Sheila's progress, Sheila had not progressed beyond supervised visits and at the time of the termination order, D.D. had been out of her Sheila's care for twenty months. Sheila also requested an additional six months to allow for reunification. However, in September 2003, Sheila requested and received a continuance of the permanency hearing, allowing her additional time beyond the statutory period to allow for reunification. She failed to make the necessary changes to adequately parent D.D. and termination followed.
A child should not be forced to endlessly suffer the parentless limbo of foster care. . . . At some point, the rights and needs of the child rise above the rights and needs of the parents. The legislature, through section 232.116 directs us to that point.
In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
Based on these and other concerns found in the record we also conclude termination is in D.D.'s best interests and therefore affirm the termination.