Opinion
No. 3-265 / 03-0462.
Filed April 30, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, GREGORY D. BRANDT, District Associate Judge.
R.C. appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her two minor children. AFFIRMED.
Bryan Tingle of Tingle, Knight, Webster Juckette, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Martha Johnson, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Robert Oberbillig, Des Moines, for father.
Nicole Garbis Nolan of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by MAHAN, P.J., and MILLER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Rose and Richard are the parents of Andrea, born in 1997, and Natasha, born in 1998. The children were removed from the parents' care in October 2001 due to the parents' mental health problems. After the children were removed, they alleged they had been sexually abused by the parents. In February 2002 the juvenile court entered an order prohibiting the parents from having contact with the children.
Rose participated in individual counseling until October 2002. She continued to deny the sexual abuse allegations and blamed the children. Rose struggled with mental health problems. Rose and Richard divorced, and Rose entered into a highly tumultuous temporary relationship.
The State filed a petition for termination of the parents' rights. Richard consented to the termination. The court terminated Rose's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (Supp. 2001). She appeals.
I. The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999).
II. The termination hearing was also a permanency hearing. Rose asked the court to enter a permanency order continuing the case for an additional six months under section 232.104(2)(b). The juvenile court denied this request, finding there was no substantial likelihood the children could be returned to the mother within six months.
On our de novo review, we agree the case should not be continued an additional six months. Rose had quit attending individual counseling and was not making any progress toward reunification. A court must reasonably limit the time for parents to be in a position to assume care of their children because patience with parents can soon translate into intolerable hardship for the children. In re A.Y.H., 508 N.W.2d 92, 96 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993).
III. Rose claims there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the termination of her parental rights. We find Rose's parental rights were properly terminated. Rose continued to have mental health problems. She had not yet addressed the sexual abuse of the children. The children could not safely be returned to Rose's care.
IV. Rose contends termination of her parental rights was not in the children's best interests. 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 children. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 389, 400 (Iowa 1994). We find termination of Rose's parental rights is in the children's best interests. Rose continues to struggle with her own problems and is unable to meet the children's needs.
We affirm the juvenile court.