Opinion
No. 5-930 / 05-1581
Filed January 19, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Constance Cohen, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Cathleen Siebrecht of Siebrecht Siebrecht Law Firm, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Stephanie Brown, Assistant County Attorney for appellee State.
Christine Milligan-Ciha of the Juvenile Public Defender's Office, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered en banc.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Charlene and Gilberto are the parents of Garrett, born in August 2002. Garrett was removed from Charlene's care in November 2003 when, as part of a narcotics investigation, police officers found Charlene and Garrett in a home where methamphetamine was being used. Charlene tested positive for methamphetamine. Garrett was placed in foster care.
Gilberto did not participate in the termination proceedings, and he is not a party to this appeal.
Garrett was adjudicated to be a child in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b) (2003) (parent is imminently likely to neglect child), (c)(2) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent's failure to exercise care in supervision), and (n) (parent's drug abuse results in child not receiving adequate care).
Charlene completed a substance abuse treatment program and was progressing in services. In February 2005, however, she relapsed back into drug use. Charlene failed to take any responsibility for this relapse. She did not provide any further drug tests or attend subsequent treatment for substance abuse.
In March 2005, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate Charlene's parental rights. The juvenile court terminated Charlene's rights under sections 232.116(1)(d) (2005) (circumstances continue despite the receipt of services), (h) (child is three or younger, CINA, removed for at least six months, and cannot be returned home), and (l) (parent has a substance abuse problem and child cannot be returned within a reasonable time). Charlene 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.F.K. 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
Charlene claims termination of her parental rights is not in Garrett's best interests. She asserts that she and Garrett have a strong bond. She also asserts that Garrett could be placed in a guardianship with the foster parents, making termination unnecessary.
Our paramount consideration in parental termination proceedings is the best interest of the child. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). We look to the child's long-range as well as immediate interests. Id. We must reasonably limit the time for parents to be in a position to assume care of their child because patience with parents can soon translate into intolerable hardship for a child. In re E.K., 568 N.W.2d 829, 831 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
Garrett needs a stable and secure home, which Charlene is not able to provide. The juvenile court concluded as follows:
[Garrett] has the opportunity to be adopted by a loving family who can meet his needs for safety and stability right now, when he needs it most. Guardianship is not the best permanency plan for a child who is under the age of three. His life will remain in limbo, with his parents having the ability to disrupt his stability on an annual basis. Termination of parental rights is in Garrett's best interests and would be less detrimental than the harm that would be caused to him by continuing the parent/child relationships.
We adopt these findings by the juvenile court, and determine termination is in Garrett's best interests. We affirm the termination of Charlene's parental rights.