Opinion
No. 4-896 / 04-1935
Filed January 26, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Michael R. Stewart, District Associate Judge.
A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their five children. AFFIRMED.
Thomas Grabinski, Grinnell, for father-appellant.
Dennis McKelvie, Grinnell, for mother-appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Michael W. Mahaffey, County Attorney, and Rebecca Petig, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Jeffrey Garland, of Charnetski, Olson, Lacina, Grinnell, guardian ad litem for the children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Shelly and Duane are the married parents of five children: Brittany (D.O.B.: 2/26/90), Lataushia (D.O.B.: 1/9/91), Earl (D.O.B.: 8/3/92), Stacy (D.O.B.: 6/24/94), and Dakota (D.O.B.: 10/16/98). The district court terminated their parental rights to these children pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116 (1)(f) (2003) (requiring proof of certain uncontested elements and proof that children cannot be returned to custody of their parents). Both parents appealed. They contend (1) the State failed to prove this ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence and (2) termination is not in the children's best interests. On our de novo review, we disagree.
Each parent has other children whose welfare is not at issue in this appeal.
Shelly and Duane were in their early thirties at the time of the termination hearing. Both had a history of substance abuse dating back to the age of fifteen. Both also were the subject of confirmed child abuse reports for failure to provide the children with adequate care and supervision and, in Duane's case, for physical abuse.
Shelly told a therapist she first used alcohol at the age of fifteen. She testified that she did not like the taste of alcohol and began using methamphetamine in 2001. Duane told his therapist he began using alcohol and marijuana at the age of fifteen. He later also used methamphetamine.
As a result of the physical abuse assessment, the children were removed from the parents' home and placed in foster care. The Department of Human Services afforded the parents a plethora of reunification services, including supervised visitation and drug treatment. Neither parent remained sober during this initial reunification process.
Approximately one year after the children were removed from their parents' care, the district court entered a permanency order placing them with a maternal aunt in Colorado. The aunt was unable to control the children and, within months, asked that they be removed from her home.
The children were returned to Iowa, where they were again placed in foster care. By the time of the termination hearing, they had been out of their parents' care for two years and four months.
During the last year before termination, the parents did make significant improvements. After the children were transferred to the care of their aunt, Shelly and Duane moved to Colorado to be closer to them and to get away from their drug-using friends. They took parenting and anger management classes, exercised visitation with the children, obtained employment with wages of $8.50 and $10.00 per hour, rented a five-bedroom house, obtained private health insurance, began drug treatment, and remained substance-free for approximately a year.
Although the court only authorized supervised visitation, the parents also cared for their children on weekends when the maternal aunt was scheduled to work.
Duane had eleven or twelve more classes to complete and Shelly had two.
Shelly testified,
I can probably say that we have accomplished things that we have never done in our life before, that we have a five-bedroom house which I never thought in my life that I would have, and I have health insurance for the first time through a job, which I never had before in my past jobs. We're drug free, and that feels good. . . . We're living a responsible adult life now.
Similarly, Duane acknowledged he "messed up in the past" but stated he had since "changed" his "life around." He noted he had not "missed a single day of work," had "dropped no dirty UA's," and had not done "anything wrong." He stated, "I am doing everything that is right, and now I am fighting to keep my kids. . . ." These statements were corroborated by a social worker with the Colorado Department of Social Services, who stated, "I was very impressed with this family." She continued, "[t]hey have shown a sense of responsibility and they have done it pretty much on their own."
The district court recognized these improvements, but stated the issue was one of "timing." We are compelled to agree. By his own admission, Duane abused illegal substances for more than fifteen years. After the children's removal, he relapsed, despite intensive reunification efforts. Although Shelly's history with illegal drugs was shorter, she also relapsed. These relapses triggered the court's permanency order. When the permanency order proved unworkable, the parents were not in a position to regain custody. More time elapsed, and the children settled into a routine with their foster families.
At the termination hearing, all five children told the court they wished to stay in their present foster homes. We concede as the district court did that the opinions of the younger children are entitled to little weight. Nevertheless, the remaining record suggests the children were in stable, loving pre-adoptive homes and, more importantly, feared removal from this environment. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2)(b)(1), (2) (authorizing court to consider "[t]he length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining that environment and continuity for the child" and "[t]he reasonable preference of the child, if the court determines that the child has sufficient capacity to express a reasonable preference"). Under these circumstances, we conclude the State proved the children could not be returned to their parents and proved that termination of Shelly and Duane's parental rights to these children was in their best interests.
AFFIRMED.