Opinion
No. 5-188 / 05-0180
Filed April 13, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, William L. Thomas, Judge.
A mother and father appeal from the order terminating their parental rights. AFFIRMED.
John Hedgecoth, Cedar Rapids, for appellant-father.
Jean Lawrence, Cedar Rapids, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Kelly Kaufman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Annette Martin, Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.
A mother and father appeal from a juvenile court order which terminated their parental rights to their three children. The father contends (1) the state failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and (2) the children should be placed in long term foster care if they are not returned to parental care. The mother contends the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights because (1) two of the children objected to the termination, (2) termination would be detrimental due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship, and (3) the best interests of the children would be served by a long term foster care placement. Upon our de novo review of the record, we affirm.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Kenneth and Belinda F. are the parents of Heather, born in January 1993, Tabitha, born in May 1994, and Cody, born in May 1998. Belinda has another child, Christopher, who will soon turn
eighteen. The family came to the attention of the Department of Human Services (DHS) in 1998 after Heather reported that an older cousin had touched her inappropriately. In May 1998, Cody tested positive, at birth, for marijuana. In June 1999, Christopher, the children's older half-sibling, admitted to having inappropriate sexual contact with Heather and Tabitha. The family received services on a voluntary basis after these incidents.
The record indicates Belinda's parental rights to another child were voluntarily terminated in an earlier judicial proceeding.
Christopher was removed from the home after this incident. He has not lived with the victims since the abuse occurred.
The family began receiving voluntary services again in February 2003. At that time, Kenneth was in jail for a probation violation and for committing domestic abuse assault on Belinda. In addition, Belinda was not taking the medications prescribed for her mental health conditions and was not providing adequate care for the children. On March 12, 2003, the State filed a petition alleging the children were in need of assistance (CINA). During a home visit on March 28, a service provider found Heather and Tabitha caring for Cody who was seriously ill. Belinda was in bed and Kenneth was still in jail. The children were removed from their parents care. A short time later, Kenneth and Belinda were evicted from their apartment. Following a removal hearing, the children were ordered to remain in foster care pending an adjudicatory hearing.
The record indicates Kenneth served 100 days in jail for these offenses.
The children were adjudicated CINA on August 4, 2003. At the adjudication hearing, the mother and father stipulated that the children should remain with the DHS for the purpose of continued foster family care. The parents received numerous services after the adjudication order was entered including supervised visitation.
On December 17, 2004, the State filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Kenneth and Belinda. Following a contested hearing, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of both parents pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2003). Both Kenneth and Belinda have appealed.
II. Scope of Review
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1993). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2001). Our primary concern is the best interests of the children. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
III. Discussion
We address the issues raised by the parents in this appeal in turn. Kenneth first contends the State failed to prove the statutory grounds alleged for termination by clear and convincing evidence. The juvenile court terminated Kenneth's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f) (children are four or older, CINA, removed from home for twelve of the last eighteen months, and cannot be returned home). Kenneth does not challenge the first three elements required for termination under this section; however, he does claim the juvenile court erred in concluding the children could not be returned to the custody of their parents. We disagree.
The juvenile court acknowledged that Kenneth and Belinda met some of the goals set for them in the case permanency plan. For instance, it appears Kenneth has addressed his substance abuse problem. He has been sober for the last twenty-one months and the parents' caseworkers do not believe domestic abuse is currently an issue in the home. In addition, the parents missed only a few of their regularly scheduled visits. Unfortunately, other serious impediments to reunification remain.
Despite receiving numerous services, Kenneth and Belinda have been unable to acquire suitable housing for their family. The parents live in a small house owned by Kenneth's aunt. The aunt also lives in the home along with another adult relative. Service providers who have been in the home consider it inadequate for the care of the children because of safety concerns and the lack of space. The district court concluded that "[t]he house is clearly not adequate to appropriately house four adults and three children." Although they have no income, Kenneth and Belinda are apparently ineligible for a low-income housing program because of damage they did to an apartment they rented while participating in that program on a prior occasion.
Kenneth and Belinda do not pay rent. They reside at the home at the sufferance of their aunt.
Both Kenneth and Belinda have long standing mental health problems. In November 2004, Belinda was hospitalized after attempting suicide. Kenneth and Belinda's past performance demonstrates that they lack the skills necessary to parent three children with special needs. While residing with their parents the children have been exposed to alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and domestic abuse. In addition, Tabitha and Heather were sexually abused by an older half-sibling while in their parents' care. When first removed and placed in foster care, Heather, then age ten was highly "parentifed" and was acting as primary care taker for the family. Obviously, this was not an appropriate role for a child of her age. Cody was described as "totally out of control" when removed from parental custody. Although both the mother and father made some improvements in their parenting skills while this case was pending, neither had progressed to the point where even semi-supervised visits were being recommended. Neither parent was employed when the termination hearing was held. Sadly, the record reveals these parents are unable to meet their own needs, let alone the needs of their children. We conclude the statutory grounds for termination of both parents' parental rights were proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Kenneth has not worked for many years.
Kenneth next claims the juvenile court erred by terminating his parental rights instead of placing the children in long-term foster care. He asserts that he shares a strong bond with his children which should be maintained. We acknowledge that even if the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights are met, the decision to terminate must still be in the best interests of the children. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). The record supports Kenneth's assertion that he and Belinda share a strong bond with their children. Some of the parents' service providers testified that long term foster care was a possibility in this case; however, all of the providers testified that the children were adoptable and that long-term foster care was not in the children's best interests. We find no reason to disagree with the juvenile court's failure to order long term foster care in lieu of termination.
We now turn to the issues raised by Belinda on appeal. Belinda claims the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights because two of the children objected to the termination. Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(b). She also argues that her parental rights should not have been terminated due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship. Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). Finally, she asserts that the best interests of the children would have been best served by a long-term foster care placement rather than termination.
The provisions of section 232.116(3) are permissive not mandatory. In re C.L.H., 500 N.W.2d 449, 454 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993). It is within the sound discretion of the juvenile court, based upon the circumstances before it and the best interests of the children, whether to apply these sections. Id. The record shows that the parents' caseworkers and the juvenile court carefully considered the children's stated wishes, the realities of their parents' circumstances, and the long-term best interests of the children before concluding that termination was appropriate here. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude the juvenile court was correct in determining that termination of the mother and father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court.