Opinion
No. 4-333 / 04-0512
May 26, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan Flaherty, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter. AFFIRMED.
Mary McGee Light, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Rebecca Belcher, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Ross Hauser, Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Anita D. appeals a juvenile court order which terminated her parental rights to her daughter. She claims the State failed to prove the statutory grounds necessary for termination by clear and convincing evidence. She also contends termination of her parental rights is not in her daughter's best interests. We affirm the juvenile court's decision.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Anita and Calvin D. are the parents of Tanganika, born in November 1997. Tanganika is the eighth child born to Anita and Calvin. Both parents have lengthy histories of criminal activity and substance abuse. Anita's criminal record dates back to 1989 and includes convictions for: possession of cocaine, delivery of crack cocaine, domestic abuse, multiple prostitution offenses, welfare fraud, and theft. Calvin's criminal record dates back to 1974 and includes convictions for: armed robbery, possession of a controlled substance, battery, domestic abuse, and firearms offenses. Anita and Calvin have both used drugs for many years. Neither parent has been able to refrain from abusing drugs or alcohol for any sustained period of time. Anita and Calvin have been separated for several years. Their seven oldest children have all been removed from their care and adopted or placed with relatives.
Tanganika first came to the attention of the Department of Human Services in May of 2001. An investigation revealed that Tanganika, then three years old, had been physically abused by an adult caretaker. Tanganika's parents were both incarcerated when the abuse occurred. Further investigation revealed that the child had spent much of her life being cared for by acquaintances of her parents.
The juvenile court adjudicated Tanganika as a child in need of assistance (CINA) on October 11, 2001. At the adjudication hearing, Anita stipulated her daughter was a child in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b), 6(c)(2), 6(g), 6(j), and 6(n) (2001). Both parents were incarcerated when the hearing was held.
Tanganika was returned to her mother's care in November of 2002 after Anita completed a substance abuse treatment program while residing in a community correctional facility and then obtained her own apartment. Unfortunately, Anita's progress was short-lived. Soon after she was reunited with her daughter, Anita moved without providing notice to the Department of Human Services. She stopped meeting with her service provider and began using drugs again.
On March 3, 2003, Anita was arrested for probation violations. Tanganika was found living with a friend of Anita's, who was not an appropriate caretaker for the child. The court removed Tanganika from the friend's care and placed her in foster care. Tanganika has been out of her mother's care ever since. In May 2003, Anita was charged with delivery of a controlled substance, crack cocaine. On August 27, 2003, the State filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Anita and Calvin. The court heard evidence regarding the State's petition on October 23, 2003, November 17, 2003, and January 4, 2004.
Completion of the hearing was delayed by Calvin's failure to make a timely request for appointment of counsel and by his failure to appear on the original trial date.
On March 29, 2004, the juvenile court entered an order terminating Anita and Calvin's parental rights. Anita's parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(l) (2003). Calvin's parental rights were also terminated. Only Anita appeals.
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 child. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
III. Discussion
Anita claims that her parental rights should not have been terminated because the State failed to prove the statutory grounds necessary for termination by clear and convincing evidence. She also suggests it is not in her daughter's best interests to terminate her parental rights.
Anita's parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(l). That section provides that the juvenile court may terminate parental rights when all of the following have occurred:
(1) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to 232.96 and custody has been transferred from the child's parents for placement pursuant to section 232.102.
(2) The parent has a severe, chronic substance abuse problem, and presents a danger to self or others as evidenced by prior acts.
(3) There is clear and convincing evidence that the parent's prognosis indicates that the child will not be able to be returned to the custody of the parent within a reasonable period of time considering the child's age and need for a permanent home.
Anita does not dispute that Tanganika has been adjudicated CINA. However, she does argue that the State failed to prove the second and third elements of section 232.116(1)(l). We disagree. The juvenile court noted the following in its termination order:
[T]he record shows that [Anita] has been in difficult positions in the past, has made commitments to the Court and to her child, but has simply been unable to maintain those commitments. She has attempted on numerous prior occasions to establish a residence for herself and to abstain from drugs and alcohol. These prior efforts have all failed. [Anita] is currently in jail, facing sentencing on a serious offense. She is not able to assume custody of the child at the time of trial. More importantly, she has not yet demonstrated that she will refrain from her prior illegal activities once she is outside of a correctional facility. The Court is unable to conclude, with any degree of certainty, that [Anita]'s substance abuse, criminal activity and general instability are things of the past.
. . .
Tanganika has been physically abused, observed adults engaged in drug usage and excessive consumption of alcohol, and has been exposed to domestic violence and other criminal activity as a result of her parent's inability to abstain from their usage of crack cocaine. She has been without a home of her own and without consistent caretakers for virtually her entire life, again as a result of her parent's inability to abstain from drug usage.
The record in this case clearly supports the juvenile court's observations and conclusions. By any measuring stick, Anita has a severe and chronic substance abuse problem. She presents a danger to herself and others, including her daughter. Nothing in the record suggests that Tanganika would be able to be returned to Anita's custody within a reasonable period of time. We find that the State proved the statutory grounds necessary for termination by clear and convincing evidence.
Anita also asserts that it is not in her daughter's best interests to terminate her parental rights. She suggests termination of this parent-child relationship would be detrimental to Tanganika because she shares a close bond with her child. We conclude Anita failed to preserve error on this issue. However, even if error had been preserved, we would find that termination of Anita's parental rights clearly serves Tanganika's best interests. Tanganika needs permanency and stability. She deserves a chance to live in a safe, drug free environment. She should not have to wait any longer for responsible parenting. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court.
Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c) provides that the court need not terminate the relationship between the parent and child if there is clear and convincing evidence that the termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.
We find no indication in the record that the mother ever raised the exception found in section 232.116(3)(c) before the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.