Opinion
No. 4-893 / 04-1575
Filed January 13, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan Flaherty, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals from a juvenile court order which terminated his parental rights to his daughters. AFFIRMED.
Mary McGee Light, Cedar Rapids, for appellant-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner and Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorneys General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Rebecca Belcher, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Pamela Jo Lewis, Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Bernard B. appeals from a juvenile court order which terminated his parental rights to his two daughters. Upon our de novo review, we affirm the juvenile court's decision.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Twila H. is the mother of Lexus B., born January 5, 1998, Precious B., born March 10, 1999, Davia M., born March 10, 2002, and Davine M., born September 16, 2003. Bernard B. is the father of Lexus and Precious. David M. is the father of Davia and Davine. Only the two oldest children are at issue in this appeal.
Both Lexus and Precious tested positive for cocaine at birth. Both their parents have abused controlled substances for many years. The girls were adjudicated as children in need of assistance (CINA) for the first time in August of 1999. Their mother received numerous services, and they remained under the supervision of the juvenile court until June 2000 when the proceedings were dismissed.
During March 2002, the Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the family again after Davia tested positive for cocaine when she was born. Shortly after Davia's birth, Lexus and Precious also tested positive for cocaine. All three children were adjudicated to be children in need of assistance on June 21, 2002. Following a dispositional hearing held August 1, 2002, the children were allowed to remain in their mother's care with the Department providing protective services. In May 2003, the children were removed from their mother's care after she began using crack cocaine again. Twila received additional services and made some progress, but her behavior eventually made it clear that reunification was not likely to occur.
On June 22, 2004, the State filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Twila, Bernard, and David. Following a termination hearing held on August 24 and 25, 2004, the juvenile court entered an order on September 20, 2004 terminating the parental rights of Twila, Bernard, and David. Only the Bernard has pursued an appeal.
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, Bernard claims the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. He also claims reasonable efforts were not made to reunite him with his children, and that he should have been allowed an additional six months to pursue reunification. Finally, he argues termination is not in his children's best interests. Upon our de novo review of the record, we find no merit in any of his contentions.
The juvenile court terminated Bernard's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2003) (children are four or older, CINA, removed from home for twelve of the last eighteen months and cannot be returned home) and section 232.116(1)(l) (children CINA, parent has a chronic substance abuse problem, and children cannot be returned home within a reasonable time). Bernard has a lengthy history of violating the law and abusing controlled substances. He did not participate in the first CINA action involving his daughters. After the second petition was filed, he appeared at a few court hearings, but did not participate in services until October of 2003. The Department arranged visitation for Bernard, but he was inconsistent in participating and had difficulty managing his children's behavior. Bernard agreed to participate in a batterer's education program, obtain a substance abuse evaluation and follow through with treatment. He did not complete all of these tasks.
Bernard has been in and out of jail since October of 2003. He was arrested on August 14, 2004, and placed in jail on a charge of delivery of a controlled substance. He has a previous conviction for this same offense. Bernard was incarcerated when the termination hearing was held. We conclude the State has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Bernard has a severe, chronic substance abuse problem. As a result, he presents a danger to himself and others. His children could not be safely returned to his care at the time of the termination hearing or at any point in the foreseeable future. Like the juvenile court, we conclude the grounds for termination are amply supported by the evidence.
Bernard also contends that the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite him with his daughters. He argues the juvenile court erred in failing to give him an additional six months to pursue reunification. We disagree. Bernard was in jail facing serious charges when the termination hearing was held. The record reveals he used cocaine about ten days before the termination hearing commenced. Bernard has a lengthy history of instability, substance abuse, and criminal activity. His past performance demonstrates that it is highly unlikely that he would have benefited from any additional services or time. Accordingly, we reject this assignment of error.
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). Bernard's daughters have little, if any, bond with him. Lexus and Precious need a safe, stable, nurturing, and drug free home now, not at some point in the future. The girls should not have to wait any longer for Bernard to address his numerous problems and become an available parent. Termination of Bernard's parental rights is clearly in his children's best interests.