Opinion
No. 5-689 / 05-1312
Filed October 12, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Brian L. Michaelson, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three minor children. AFFIRMED.
Molly Vakulskas Joly of Vakulskas Law Firm, P.C., Sioux City, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas S. Mulllin, County Attorney, and David Dawson, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Joseph Flannery, LeMars, for father.
Lesley Rynell of the Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Mahan and Miller, JJ.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Jessica and Hector are the parents of Zenaida, born in December 1995; Hector Jr., born in February 1998; and Janice, born in September 2001. The children were removed from Jessica's care in April 2004 after drug paraphernalia was found in the home. Hair tests showed Hector Jr. and Janice had been exposed to methamphetamine. The children were placed in the care of the paternal grandmother.
Hector was in prison on federal drug charges throughout the juvenile court proceedings. He is not a party to the appeal.
The children were adjudicated to be children 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 supervise), and (o) (illegal drug present in child). Jessica was ordered to participate in in-home services and obtain substance abuse and psychosocial evaluations.
Jessica was arrested for fighting in April and June 2004. On both occasions she was intoxicated. Jessica had a substance abuse evaluation in July 2004, which recommended residential treatment. Jessica did not complete a substance abuse treatment program. She continued to associate with known gang members and drug users. Jessica had problems maintaining employment or housing. During a mental health evaluation Jessica expressed homicidal thoughts about service providers. She was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Deputies were required to restrain Jessica at a juvenile court hearing because she became agitated and was swearing at the paternal grandmother.
In April 2005 the State filed a petition seeking to terminate Jessica's parental rights. Jessica completed a residential treatment program and expected to enter the House of Mercy. She sought a continuance of the proceedings, which was denied by the juvenile court. Jessica relapsed again prior to the termination hearing.
The court terminated Jessica's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(d) (2005) (child CINA for neglect, circumstances continue despite the receipt of services), (e) (child CINA, removed for six months, parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact), (f) (child four or older, CINA, removed for at least twelve months, and cannot be returned home) (Zenaida and Hector Jr.), (h) (child is three or younger, CINA, removed at least six months, and cannot be returned home) (Janice), (i) (child CINA, in imminent danger, and services would not correct conditions), and (l) (child CINA, parent has substance abuse problem, child cannot be returned within a reasonable time). The juvenile court found:
Jessica has struggled to take advantage of the numerous services which were offered to her for one reason or another. She has struggled in seeing how her drug usage and poor relationships have affected her children. She continued to use drugs and alcohol throughout the entire case and completed an in-patient program after the Termination of Parental Rights petition had been filed only to relapse three days later.
Jessica appeals the termination of her parental rights.
II. Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). 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 interests of the children. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
III. Continuance
Jessica claims the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying her motion for a continuance. She states that she was in aftercare and was on the waiting list for the House of Mercy. We review a motion for continuance under an abuse of discretion standard. In re C.W., 554 N.W.2d 279, 281 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). Denial of a motion to continue must be unreasonable under the circumstances before we will reverse. Id.
We find the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a continuance. While Jessica had made recent progress by attending a substance abuse treatment program, she also relapsed again almost immediately. The children have been out of the home since April 2004 and should not be required to wait longer for permanency.
IV. Reasonable Efforts
Jessica contends the State did not provide reasonable services to reunite the minor children with her. While the State has an obligation to provide reasonable reunification services, a parent has the obligation to demand other, different, or additional services prior to the termination hearing. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). Here, Jessica did not demand services other than those provided to her. We conclude the issue of whether services were adequate has not been preserved for our review. See In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994).
V. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Jessica asserts that the State did not present sufficient evidence to warrant termination of her parental rights. We find clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of Jessica's parental rights. Jessica has not yet fully addressed her substance abuse problems. She has not made the lifestyle changes that would be necessary to provide a safe environment for the children. We conclude Jessica's parental rights were properly terminated under section 232.116(1)(d), because the circumstances that led the children's CINA adjudication continued despite the receipt of services. Because we have affirmed on this ground, we do not need to address the other grounds cited by the juvenile court. See In re A.J., 553 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996).
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.