Opinion
No. 6-039 / 05-1822
Filed February 1, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karla J. Fultz, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights to her children. AFFIRMED.
Alexandra M. Nelissen of Nellisen Law Office, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Annette Stanley, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Kathryn Miller, Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her children. She contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, that termination is not in the children's best interest, and that the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite her with her children. We review her claims de novo. In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002).
The mother's parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) and (f) (2005). We need only find termination proper under one ground to affirm. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). Termination is appropriate under section 232.116(1)(f) where:
(1) The child is four years of age or older.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child's parents for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, or for the last twelve consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that at the present time the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child's parents as provided in section 232.102.
The mother does not dispute the first three elements of this section have been met, but contends the State has failed to prove the children cannot be returned to her care.
Clear and convincing evidence shows the children cannot be returned to their mother's care. Although the mother appeared to have ceased her substance abuse in the eighteen months prior to termination, she was still unable to provide proper housing, care, and supervision for her children. No witness recommended the children be returned to the mother's care at the time of the termination hearing. The mother requests more time to acquire and demonstrate proper parenting skills. While the law requires a "full measure of patience with troubled parents who attempt to remedy a lack of parenting skills," this patience has been built into the statutory scheme of chapter 232. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000). The children had been in foster care for all but five months of the two years preceding termination. Under the facts of this case, termination is warranted.
We also conclude termination is in the children's best interest. The eldest two children voiced fears of being returned to their mother's care. They are in therapy as a result of the trauma they experienced while living with their mother. The oldest child has required hospitalization due to emotional problems. When living with their mother at House of Mercy, the children appeared to be "very, very scared" of her. Termination is in their best interest.
Finally, we conclude the State made reasonable efforts to reunite the children with their mother. The mother failed to take advantage of the services offered her, and her providers' efforts were often hindered by the mother's habitual lying. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court's order terminating the mother's parental rights.