Opinion
No. 5-085 / 04-1989
Filed February 9, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Associate Juvenile Judge.
S.P.C. appeals from the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Charles Brown, Jr. of Law Offices of Charles C. Brown, Jr., Ryan, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Steven Halbach, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Tomas Rodriguez, Cedar Falls, for mother.
Linnea Nicol, Assistant Public Defender, Waterloo, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Stephon and Renita are the parents of Ramirez, who was born in September 2003. Ramirez tested positive for cocaine at birth, resulting in his removal from parental custody and placement in foster care. Other concerns supporting removal included the parents' criminal records, history of domestic violence, and deficient parenting skills. These concerns were based on the Department of Human Services' prior record of services offered to Stephon and Renita concerning an older sibling that had been exposed to illegal drugs. Stephon's and Renita's parental rights to that child were terminated in April 2004.
The juvenile court adjudicated Ramirez to be a child in need of assistance (CINA), pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2003) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent's failure to supervise), (n) (parent's drug abuse results in child not receiving adequate care), and (o) (illegal drug present in child). The dispositional order entered on June 4, 2004, continued Ramirez's placement in foster care. In addition, the parents were ordered to participate in family-centered services. Stephon was also ordered to complete a substance abuse evaluation and follow all recommendations made by the evaluator. He was further ordered to enroll in a batterer's education class.
In December 2003 Stephon was arrested for domestic assault. In May 2004 he was arrested for shoplifting. The record indicates that Stephon's visitation with Ramirez and participation in court-ordered services was inconsistent. He tested positive for cocaine in July 2004.
In August 2004 the guardian ad litem filed a petition seeking termination of the parents' rights. The juvenile court terminated the parents' rights under sections 232.116(1)(d) (circumstances which led to CINA adjudication continue despite the receipt of services), (g) (parent's rights to another child were terminated and parent does not respond to services), and (h) (child three or younger, removed for at least six months, and child cannot be returned home). The juvenile court found:
No evidence has been established which would demonstrate that Renita or Stephon have made any significant changes in their lives from which the Court could consider placement of the child in either parent's care. Both parents continue to use illegal drugs, as evidenced through urinalysis testing. . . . Stephon has not regularly made himself available for services nor demonstrated any ability to provide a safe and stable home for the child.
Stephon appeals the termination order.
II. Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. 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 2000).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Stephon contends the guardian ad litem did not present sufficient evidence to justify termination of his parental rights. He asserts he has made changes to his life and can now care for Ramirez. We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of Stephon's parental rights. The problems which led to the CINA adjudication continued at the time of the termination hearing. Stephon continued to have problems with substance abuse, domestic violence, and criminal activity. Stephon had not changed his life to the extent that Ramirez could safely be returned to his care.
IV. Best Interests
Stephon claims that it is not in Ramirez's best interests to terminate his parental rights. Even if the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights are met, the decision to terminate must still be in the best interests of the child. In re M.M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). In considering a child's best interests, we look to the child's long-range as well as immediate best interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). In our de novo review, we find termination of Stephon's parental rights is in Ramirez's best interests. Ramirez is developmentally delayed because of drug exposure before he was born. It is in Ramirez's best interests to have a stable and secure environment, which Stephon cannot provide.
V. Extension of Time
Stephon asserts that he should have been given more time to address his parenting deficiencies. A parent does not have an unlimited amount of time to correct his or her deficiencies. In re H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d 675, 677 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). Patience with parents can soon translate into intolerable hardship for their child. C.K., 558 N.W.2d at 175. A child simply cannot wait for responsible parenting. Id. We determine Ramirez should not be forced to wait longer for Stephon to become a responsible parent.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.