Opinion
No. 5-346 / 05-0353
Filed April 28, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Brian L. Michaelson, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother and father appeal from a juvenile court order which terminated their parental rights to their two children. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Wayne Prichard, Sioux City, for appellant-father.
Kelly Salker of Berenstein, Moore, Berenstein, Heffernan Moeller, L.L.P., Sioux City, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas S. Mullin, County Attorney, and Marleen Loftus, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
H. Allan Sturgeon, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, JJ.
Heather M. and Lucas M. appeal separately from a juvenile court order which terminated their parental rights to their two children. Both Heather and Lucas claim the State failed to prove the statutory grounds necessary for termination. They also contend termination is not in their children's best interests. Upon our de novo review of the record, we affirm the juvenile court.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Heather and Lucas are the married parents of Castle, born in September 1999, and Kala, born in March 2001. In September 2003, Heather and Lucas separated. Lucas moved to Omaha, Nebraska. He left the children with Heather even though he knew that Heather was taking drugs and associating with people the children should not be around.
Heather is the mother of two other children. Both children died during infancy. One child died from medical complications and the other child died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Lucas was the father of the child who died from SIDS.
Lucas later acknowledged that he had concerns that the children would be abused or neglected if he left them with Heather, but he decided to take no action to protect them.
In November 2003, the family came to the attention of the Department of Human Services (DHS) as a result of allegations that Heather was not providing adequate supervision or care for Castle and Kala. The record reveals Heather was leaving the children in the care of an inappropriate caretaker who had an extensive criminal history. She also exposed the children to her boyfriend who had been named as a perpetrator of sexual abuse in the second degree in a founded child abuse report.
An investigation revealed the house in which the children were living was a mess and the children were hungry. Castle had bite marks of various sizes on his body. The children were under-socialized and already beginning to exhibit serious behavioral problems. Consequently, the children were removed by Sioux City police officers. The children were subsequently returned to Heather after she promised DHS that she would cooperate with a variety of services.
Although Heather did participate in some of the services DHS provided, she made little progress. In January 2004, child protective services investigator Robert Ameen, case manager Robin Garraway, and service provider Robin Harris visited Heather's residence. They all observed a marijuana joint in an ashtray on the coffee table readily accessible to both children. Heather denied knowledge of the marijuana. Heather and her children then underwent drug testing. Both Heather and Castle tested positive for methamphetamine at an exposure level, while Kala tested very high positive for methamphetamine at a consumption level.
In February 2004, one of Castle's head start teachers reported Castle's hygiene was poor, that he had regressed in his toilet training, and that the staff noticed he was developing some disturbing behaviors. The teacher reported Castle would often become very angry and begin hitting his friends. He also cursed and threw things. The teacher also described emotional breakdowns during which Castle would walk around the room crying and then throw himself on the ground in the fetal position.
On February 9, 2004, Castle and Kala were removed from Heather's care by the juvenile court. At the time of the removal, Kala was described as "catatonic." She was filthy and heavily induced with drugs. Kala, like Castle, has a speech delay. After a temporary placement in shelter care, the children were placed in family foster care where they remain. Following a removal hearing, the court concluded the children were in imminent danger at the time of removal and should remain in family foster care. Reunification services were ordered. Castle and Kala were formally adjudicated to be children in need of assistance in April 2004.
In May 2004, Castle attempted suicide by hanging himself with the straps of his backpack. While Castle has not repeated his suicide attempt, he remains afraid of returning to the "green house" in which he lived with Heather and her paramour, Theresa. Castle has consistently described significant abuse while under the care of Heather and Theresa. It is apparent from the progress reports provided by Castle's teacher and from reports on his progress in play therapy, that he has experienced extreme abuse.
In January and March 2004, Heather tested positive for methamphetamine. Notwithstanding these positive tests, Heather continued to deny illegal drug usage. In May and October 2004, Heather submitted to substance abuse assessments. On both occasions she denied that she used illegal drugs. After both assessments, it was recommended that Heather complete a family education series. Heather failed to follow through with the services recommended. In October 2004, Heather tested positive for marijuana. In November 2004, she submitted to a third substance abuse assessment. She continued to minimize her drug usage.
Lucas has only been minimally involved in the juvenile court proceedings concerning his two children. While arrangements were made for supervised visitations between Lucas and his children, along with concurrent parent skill development services, his visitations have been inconsistent and sporadic. Lucas did not write or call the children. His parent assessment inventory indicates that he lacks empathy and nurturing skills. Lucas reported that he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, along with a seizure disorder, but now maintains that his mental illness and seizure disorder have been cured. Lucas has provided no financial support to his children even though he is currently employed. Home studies were conducted regarding Lucas and the children's paternal grandfather and step-grandmother. Both of these home studies were negative. Lucas repeatedly lied about his circumstances during the termination proceedings.
On November 30, 2004, the State filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Heather and Lucas to their two children. Following a hearing, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of both parents. Heather's parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (h), (i) and ( l) (2003). Lucas's parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), (h) and (i). Both parents have appealed from the termination order.
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
On appeal, both Heather and Lucas claim the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination and contend that termination is not in their children's best interests.
A. Statutory Grounds
Upon a careful review of the record, we find clear and convincing evidence supports termination of Heather and Lucas's parental rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(i) (children in need of assistance because of physical or sexual abuse or neglect, the abuse or neglect constituted imminent danger to the children, services would not correct the conditions which led to the abuse or neglect within a reasonable period of time).
Heather has demonstrated she is unable to care for her children or protect them from harm. Her employment history is sporadic and her housing situation unstable. Heather participated in some services, but made little progress until the termination hearing was imminent. Despite compelling evidence to the contrary, Heather failed to admit that she had a lengthy history of marijuana and methamphetamine use until the termination hearing. Her past use of controlled substances clearly placed her children in danger. Heather had been drug free for only three months when her parental rights were terminated. During supervised visits with the children, Heather proved unable to parent both children at the same time. Heather never progressed beyond supervised visits.
Lucas has also shown that he is unable or unwilling to protect his children. When he moved to Omaha in September 2003, and left his children with their mother, he knew he was placing them directly in harm's way. Yet, he left anyway. Lucas has failed to be consistent in his visitations with his children or in his follow through with services. His actions are reflective of his parenting assessment inventory which states that he lacks empathy and nurturing skills. Finally, Lucas has provided no financial support to his children even though he has a full-time job.
Clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that additional services would not alleviate the problems which led to the children's removal in the first place. Because we conclude Heather and Lucas's parental rights were properly terminated under section 232.116(1)(i), we need not address the other grounds for termination relied on by the juvenile court. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999) (stating when juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we need only find grounds to terminate under one of the sections cited by the juvenile court to affirm).
B. Best Interests
Even if the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights are met, the decision to terminate must be in the children's best interests. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Heather and Lucas maintain termination is not in their children's best interests. Both Heather and Lucas have demonstrated that they are unable to maintain a safe, healthy, wholesome, and stable environment for their children. These children were in terrible condition when they were removed from their parent's care. They have thrived in the safety of foster care. We agree with the juvenile court that if the children were returned to Heather or Lucas they would be at a high risk of further adjudicatory harm. Children should not be forced to endlessly await the maturity of natural parents. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000). At some point, the rights and needs of the children rise above the rights and needs of the parents. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). Because termination is in the children's best interests, we affirm.