Opinion
No. 5-284 / 05-0260
Filed April 13, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Jane C. Mylrea, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. AFFIRMED.
David Baumgartner, Strawberry Point, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Fred H. McCaw, County Attorney, and Jean A. Becker, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
John T. Nemmers of Reynolds Kenline, L.L.P., Dubuque, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Miller, JJ.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. She contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. She also contends termination is not in the child's best interest. Upon our de novo review of the record, we affirm the juvenile court.
K.M. was removed from the mother three days after her birth. The removal occurred because of problems the mother had parenting her son. The mother had become involved with the Department of Human Services after using marijuana in the home when the son was present. The mother also failed to provide the son with prescription medication for his seizure disorder. Evidence also showed the mother neglected and physically abused him. At the time of K.M.'s birth, an action to terminate the mother's parental rights to her son was pending.
The mother was receiving services prior to K.M.'s birth, and these services continued during the pendancy of this case. Despite the receipt of services, the juvenile court found the same issues that led to the adjudication of K.M. as a child in need of assistance (CINA) continued to exist at the time of the termination hearing. The court found clear and convincing evidence supported termination of the mother's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2003). The father's parental rights were also terminated. Only the mother appeals.
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 child. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
On appeal, the mother contends the State failed to prove the statutory ground relied on by the juvenile court for termination of her parental rights by clear and convincing evidence. She argues the child can be returned to her care. We disagree.
We conclude termination is appropriate under section 232.116(1)(h) (child is three or younger, CINA, removed from home for six of last twelve months, and cannot be returned to parent's custody). The mother has already had her parental rights to one child terminated following two founded child abuse reports. Despite being offered numerous services to rectify her deficiencies, the mother failed to take advantage of the help offered her. She has a myriad of mental health problems that remain unaddressed. These problems inhibit her ability to effectively parent. She is unable to provide a stable environment for the child; she has moved twenty-two times over a two year period, missed fourteen of the forty-two visitations with her child, and has multiple relationships with men, as she has male dependency issues. Clear and convincing evidence shows the child cannot be returned to the mother's custody.
We also conclude termination is in the child's best interest. The child was removed from the mother's care when she was three days old. The child is not bonded with the mother. The mother has no way to support the child, and lives what the juvenile court describes as "a very nomadic and unstable lifestyle." The mother has failed to follow through with needed services, showing an unwillingness or inability to make the changes needed to raise her child. Children should not be forced to endlessly await the maturity of a natural parent. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000). At some point, the rights and needs of the child rise above the rights and needs of the parent. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). At the time of termination, the child was seven months old and living in pre-adoptive foster care with her half-brother. The child needs permanency, and it is in the child's best interest that the mother's parental rights be terminated.