Opinion
No. 5-060 / 04-1932
Filed February 9, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karla J. Fultz, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her two daughters. REVERSED.
Thomas F. Webster, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Annette Stanley, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Amy Kepes of the Youth Law Center, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Debra Hockett-Clark, West Des Moines, for appellee-father.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.
Loretta B. appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her daughters Bailey B. and Morgan B. Concluding termination was not in the best interests of the children, we reverse the termination order.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
Loretta is the mother of Bailey, who was born on May 28, 2002, and Morgan, who was born on June 18, 2003. Their father is Sam B., who resides in Idaho. Bailey and Morgan, in addition to their two older siblings Mariah and Taylor, were removed from the custody of Loretta and Robert, the father of Mariah and Taylor, on August 21, 2003 due to a domestic abuse incident between Loretta and Robert. Bailey and Morgan were returned to Loretta's care in September of 2003, but were later removed again following a founded denial of critical care report regarding Taylor during a visit. The children were adjudicated to be in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n) (2003). On March 22, 2004, Bailey and Morgan were placed in the care of their father, Sam B.
On July 19, 2004 the State filed a petition seeking to terminate Loretta's parental rights to Bailey and Morgan. The petition sought termination under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) (child CINA, circumstances continue despite receipt of services) and (h) (child three or younger, CINA, removed from home six of last twelve months, cannot be returned home). Following a hearing, the juvenile court granted the petition, terminating Loretta's parental rights under both grounds alleged. Loretta appeals from this ruling.
The petition also sought termination of her parental rights to her two older children, Mariah and Taylor, but that portion of the petition was later dismissed after they were placed in the guardianship of their paternal grandmother.
Scope and Standards of Review.
We review termination of parental rights orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). Our primary concern is the best interests of the children. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2001). Even if the statutory requirements for termination are met, the decision to terminate must still be in the best interests of the children. In re N.H., 383 N.W.2d 570, 574 (Iowa 1986).
Discussion.
On appeal, Loretta maintains (1) clear and convincing evidence does not support the decision to terminate under either section cited by the juvenile court, (2) termination was not in the best interests of the children, and (3) the juvenile court erred in concluding reasonable efforts were made to reunify Loretta and the children. For purposes of this opinion, we assume, without deciding, that the State adequately proved its case for termination under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) and (h). We therefore proceed directly to the question of the best interests of the children. See id.
We first address the basis for the juvenile court's termination order. The juvenile court stressed Loretta's inability to "handle frustration, anger or stress in a productive manner" as well as her penchant for reacting with violence and minimizing her own behaviors. As evidence of these character traits, the court, among other things, detailed an incident in which Loretta's allegedly confronted Sam and his wife at a Hy Vee and recounted another incident in which Loretta became frustrated with and yelled at Bailey while changing her diaper. The court also found Loretta's "testimony was evasive and not convincing to the court."
Initially, we find it significant that none of the professionals involved in this case recommended termination, including the court appointed special advocate (CASA) Teresa Gyldenvand, Loretta's in-home worker Sharon Sickles, her in-home worker supervisor Kara Steffens-Meier, and the Department of Human Services (DHS) case manager Glori Hewitt. In fact, far from recommending termination, these individuals believed Loretta was a different person than when the children were first removed, and they advocated that either semi-supervised or unsupervised visitation be granted to Loretta. Their consensus was that, while full reunification was not immediately indicated due to Loretta's only-recent progress, with more time to prove her abilities and parenting skills, reunification was clearly a reasonable and appropriate goal.
We next review the juvenile court's finding the children "cannot be returned to the custody of [Loretta], to do so would expose them to further adjudicatory harm." Upon our de novo review of the record, we observe this conclusion is contrary to the testimony and belief of virtually every individual involved in the case. Both Sharon Sickles and Glori Hewitt reported "no protective concerns" regarding Loretta's supervision of Bailey and Morgan. Nor did Teresa Gyldenvand express any such concerns regarding a move to semi-supervised of fully unsupervised visitation.
Next, while the juvenile court acknowledged Loretta's successful completion of various services and therapies, it minimized the effect and extent of her efforts. In our view, the record does not support the court's dim view of Loretta's efforts, achievements, and improvements gained through such services. It is undisputed that Loretta has completed all requirements set forth by DHS. Moreover, she has voluntarily undertaken other programs designed to alleviate the concerns which remained an impediment to reunification. In particular, she has attended and completed three separate anger management courses, the 1,2,3 Magic Parenting Education Program, the Becoming a Love and Logic Parent Program, an emotional intensity group, and individual therapy.
The testimony of Loretta's various service providers and counselors was nearly unanimous that she had made considerable progress and had successfully received and incorporated their instruction. Lori Reynolds, Loretta's counselor in one of her anger management classes, noted that Loretta was very active in the group, appeared genuinely thankful to be able to participate, and made progress in how she deals with anger and frustration. Jeff Kramer, the facilitator of Loretta's emotional intensity group, reported to Glori Hewitt that Loretta has a "good use of self containment skills, of anger management skills, and of stress tolerance skills." Leslee Cran, Loretta's "Parents Anonymous" support group facilitator, testified that over the course of their time together, Loretta "became more positive, more calm, more constructive in how she looked at things" and exhibited a more "mature" outlook. Finally, Todd Jenkins, Loretta's individual therapist, testified that Loretta had initially voluntarily sought his services and stated that following her successful discharge Loretta had met her treatment goals, which were to reduce her emotional reactivity to different situations in her life. She was able to identify triggers which had preceded previous anger, angry episodes, and we agreed that it was time to discontinue therapy after all of the services she had.
Thus, it appears that clear and convincing evidence supports that Loretta has made significant strides in addressing her anger, patience, and parenting issues.
We further believe the existence of a strong bond between Loretta and the children argues against the decision to terminate. Teresa Gyldenvand noted Bailey's and Morgan's "close bond" with their mother, despite the amount of time they have been out of her care. She observed that Morgan appeared comfortable in her surroundings when on visits with Loretta and mentioned that when Bailey became tired or cranky during a visit, she would "crawl up on her mother's lap and cuddle." Kara Steffens-Meier also testified to observing a bond between Loretta and the children, basing this characterization, in part, on Bailey's excitement and recognition upon seeing her mother.
Finally, as this case progressed, Loretta exhibited better parenting skills and showed an increasing awareness of how her behaviors affected the children. Sharon Sickles believed that Loretta was more consistent in using the parenting skills taught to her, and expressed no concerns about the children's safety when in Loretta's care. When asked by Glori Hewitt what deficiencies still remained at the time of the termination hearing, all Sickles could note was that Loretta should praise the children more frequently. It appears that Loretta's parenting skills were not a concern which would justify termination.
Conclusion.
While we do not dispute some of the concerns stressed by the court or the specific incidents cited in support of its position, we believe those concerns and incidents do not rise to the level justifying the termination order. This case involves a mother who was for appropriate reasons brought to the attention of DHS and juvenile court authorities. She loves her children and is strongly bonded to them. Loretta's parenting skills substantially improved as she exerted great effort to improve herself with an eye toward reunifying with her children.
Termination is most certainly a harsh and extreme remedy, and one that must be sought by the State with caution and granted by courts only when fully justified. Even though certain statutory requisites for termination arguably have been established in this case, the best interests of Bailey and Morgan do not justify the extreme sanction of termination. Loretta's progress and outlook demand that she be allowed additional time to prove her ability to effectively and safely care for her children. We therefore reverse the juvenile court's ruling.