Opinion
No. 4-282 / 03-2028
May 14, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William S. Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother and father appeal from the termination of their parental rights to their child. AFFIRMED.
Stephen Small, Fairfield, for appellant-father.
Mary Krafka, of Krafka Law Office, Ottumwa, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Mark Tremmel, County Attorney, and Karen Woltman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Robert Breckenridge, of Breckenridge Duker, Ottumwa, guardian ad litem for the child.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.
A mother and father appeal from the termination of their parental rights to their child. They contend termination is not in the child's best interest and termination is not appropriate because they were making reasonable progress. We review their claims de novo. In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002).
The mother and father's parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2003). Termination is proper under this section where:
(1) The child is three years of age or younger.
(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 six months of the last twelve months, or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child's parents as provided in section 232.102 at the present time.
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h). They do not dispute the grounds for termination have been proven by clear and convincing evidence.
This is not the first time these parents have come to the court's attention. The mother has previously had her parental rights terminated to one child, and has had two other children placed permanently out of her care. A woman previously involved with the father had her children placed permanently out of her care, due in large part to her relationship with him. The father has also been convicted of lascivious acts with a child and assault with intent to commit sexual abuse. He is on the sex offender registry.
We conclude termination is in the best interest of the child. The mother has a history of choosing her paramours over her children during her fourteen-year involvement with the State. The father has a history of being hostile and threatening to service providers and is a known sex offender. The parents' past actions are evidence of the future quality of their care. See In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Iowa 2000).
Both parents argue termination is not proper because they were making progress and cooperating with court-ordered services. The mother claims she has now separated from the father. However, the trial court found, and we agree, that the relationship continues. The child should not be forced to endlessly suffer in parentless limbo. See In re E.K., 568 N.W.2d 829, 831 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). 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). Children should not be forced to endlessly await the maturity of a natural parent. Id. For children the age of K.Z., the law envisions a six-month opportunity for the parents to reform. K.Z. had been in foster care fourteen months when termination was ordered.
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). This is especially true here, where both parents have previously been involved with the Department of Human Services and have not improved their parenting skills adequately to allow for the return of their child to their care.