Opinion
No. 05-0578.
June 15, 2005.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel Block, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother and father appeal from the order terminating their parental rights to their three children. AFFIRMED.
Laura Langenwalter of the Langenwalter Law Firm, Waterloo, for appellant-father.
Kathryn J. Mahoney, Waterloo, for appellant-mother.
Thomas Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Steven Halbach, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Andrew Thalacker, Juvenile Public Defender, Waterloo, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
Sandra and Edward are the parents of Richard, who was born in 1994, James, who was born in 1996, and Edward, who was born in 2002. In October of 2003, the children were removed from their parents' custody based on concerns about lack of supervision, domestic violence, hazardous conditions in the home, parental substance abuse, and exposure of the children to illegal substances. In November, they were adjudicated to be children in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(c)(2) and (n) (2003). The State filed a petition seeking to terminate Sandra's and Edward's parental rights in December of 2004. Following a subsequent hearing, the court terminated their rights under sections 232.116(1)(f), (h), and (l) (2003). Sandra and Edward appeal.
We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). While the district court terminated the parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we will affirm if at least one ground has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). Our primary concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the children. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
On appeal, Edward maintains clear and convincing evidence does not support the termination. He also claims he was not given "adequate guidelines" about the expectations for the return of the children and the Department of Human Services (DHS) denied him the chance to have visitation in a "family setting." Sandra contends that because she "substantially complied with the expectations of [DHS], and is ready, willing and able to have her children returned to her, termination of her parental rights is not in the children's best interests."
Upon our de novo review of the record, we conclude the court properly terminated both Sandra's and Edward's parental rights to Richard and James under sections 232.116(1)(f) (child four or older, cannot be returned to custody of parents) and their rights to Edward under section 232.116(1)(h) (child three or younger, cannot be returned to custody of parents). Sandra has a significant history of mental illness and substance abuse, with admitted use of marijuana since the age of sixteen and methamphetamine since eighteen. Furthermore, Sandra was inconsistent and untimely in her acceptance of services, and she frequently was not forthcoming with service providers and therapists. Likewise, Edward has a significant history of drug abuse and mental illness issues. He was diagnosed with depression and personality disorder; however, he did not follow through with mental health assessments and treatments. In addition, Edward tested positive for illegal drugs as recently as November of 2004. Both Edward's and Sandra's personal issues clearly precluded DHS from returning custody to them at the time of the termination hearing.
In addition, setting aside any error preservation concerns, we reject Edward's specific assertions that he was not given "adequate guidelines" about the expectations for the return of the children and DHS denied him the chance to have visitation in a "family setting." Our de novo review of the "Family Centered Detailed Progress Reports" indicates specific and detailed goals expected of Edward prior to reunification. The record evidences that Edward was made fully aware of these expectations. Also, it appears that from October until November of 2004, Edward and Sandra enjoyed joint visits with the children. This arrangement only ended when Sandy left town and Edward was incarcerated.
Finally, we conclude termination of Sandra's parental rights is in the best interests of the children. It appears that Sandra only took her substance abuse treatment seriously at the late stages of this case. The concerns that prompted the removal of the children — supervision issues, drug abuse, domestic abuse, and mental health — remained largely unresolved and constituted impediments to reunification.
We therefore affirm the termination of Sandra's and Edward's parental rights.