Opinion
No. 6-004 / 05-1901
Filed January 19, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, William S. Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Debra A. George of Griffing George Law Firm, Centerville, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert F. Bozwell, Jr., County Attorney, for appellee.
Ryan Mitchell of Orsborn, Bauerle, Milani Grothe, L.L.P., Ottumwa, for father.
Kevin Maughan of Maughan Law Office, Albia, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered en banc.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Alma is the mother of David, born in 1992, James, born in 1995, Yasmine, born in 1998, and Billie Jean, born in 2000. On December 25, 2003, Alma left the children in the care of a friend, stating she would return in a few days. On December 27, Billie Jean became ill and Alma was informed of the need to return home. When Alma had not returned by December 28, the friend stated she could no longer care for the children and they were placed in foster care. An inspection of the home revealed it was extremely unsanitary, with dog feces and vomit on the floors.
The parental rights of the father of James, Yasmine, and Billie Jean were also terminated. The father of David is unknown. Neither of the fathers is involved in this appeal.
Alma did not appear for the removal hearing or the adjudicatory hearing, and her whereabouts were unknown for a period of time. Throughout much of the case Alma was living in Oklahoma. The children were adjudicated to be in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2003) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent's failure to supervise), (g) (parent fails to provide adequate food, clothing, or shelter), and (n) (parent's mental condition results in child not receiving adequate care). Alma participated in the dispositional hearing by telephone. Alma was ordered to participate in parent skill development sessions and mental health therapy.
Alma began visiting the children in September 2004. She had a parenting evaluation which determined that she was in denial concerning her parenting deficiencies, and "the primary difficulty with denial in a parent is that no change is possible if no problem is acknowledged." A home study of Alma's home in Oklahoma did not recommend placing the children there with her.
A petition to terminate Alma's parental rights was filed in January 2005. Alma did not participate in any visits after April 2005. The juvenile court terminated Alma's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f) (2005) (child four or older, CINA, removed for at least twelve months, and cannot be returned home). The juvenile court found:
These children have been removed since December 2003, and the parents are no closer to having the children returned to them now than when they were first removed. The evidence is clear and convincing that while additional time may be in the parents' best interests, it would be contrary to the welfare of the children, and would only serve to postpone establishing the permanency that they desperately need.
Alma appeals the termination of her parental rights.
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 children. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
III. Reasonable Efforts
Alma contends the State did not engage in reasonable efforts to reunite her with the children. In particular, she asserts that she was not provided with sufficient visitation, either in person or by telephone, with the children. Reasonable efforts include a visitation arrangement designed to facilitate reunification while protecting the children from the harm responsible for the removal. In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343, 345 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). The nature and extent of visitation are controlled by the best interests of the children. Id. We find the State made reasonable efforts to provide visitation to Alma, given that she lived in another state throughout much of the case and was not always available for in-person or telephone visits.
Alma also asserts that the Department of Human Services failed to take into account her passive-aggressive personality disorder. She claims that because of her disorder she was resistant to demands for adequate performance. Alma does not state what she believes the department should have done differently. We conclude the State engaged in reasonable efforts to offer services to Alma.
IV. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Alma claims the State failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the children could not be returned to her care. Alma asserts that she has made incredible progress by obtaining a job and a home in Oklahoma. She attended a parenting class there as well.
On our de novo review, we conclude the children could not be safely returned to Alma's care. The Oklahoma home study did not recommend returning the children to Alma based on the condition of the home. Furthermore, Alma remains in denial about the problems that caused the children to be removed in the first place. She cannot remedy the problems if she continues to deny they exist. There was no evidence that Alma's parenting skills have improved.
V. Economic Factors
Alma contends the juvenile court did not adequately consider her economic deprivation when considering the factors in this case. Alma asserts that the condition of her home and the fact she had chosen an inadequate caretaker for the children were based on economic factors. She points out that the termination of parental rights should not be based on economic factors alone. See In re Z.T.D., 478 N.W.2d 426, 428 (Iowa Ct.App. 1991).
As did the juvenile court, we also consider all of the evidence in considering whether there is sufficient evidence to justify termination of a parent's rights. The evidence in this case does not support Alma's claim that her bad parenting decisions were based on economic factors.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.