Opinion
No. 3-169 / 03-0212.
Filed March 12, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, WILLIAM S. OWENS, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three children. AFFIRMED.
Mary Baird Krafka of the Krafka Law Office, Ottumwa, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Mark Tremmel, County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Sam Erhardt of Erhardt Erhardt, Ottumwa, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Tracey, the mother of Alexis, born November 6, 1996, Kianna, born October 28, 1998, and Kandyce, born March 9, 2000, appeals from the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to these children. She claims termination is not in the children's interest because (1) it would sever the sibling bond, (2) Tracey has addressed her substance abuse and mental health problems, and (3) Tracey has acquired the means to provide for her children. The parental rights of the fathers of these children also were terminated, but they are not parties to this appeal. We affirm.
Alexis, Kianna, and Kandyce are the youngest three of Tracey's eight children. At the time of the termination, the oldest child, age seventeen, had been adjudicated in need of assistance and was in a shelter; the next oldest, age fifteen, was in group care; the next three, ages thirteen, twelve, and ten were in the care of their father; and the three at issue in this appeal were in foster care.
In May 2001 Tracey sought help from DHS because she was having trouble caring for her children because of her substance abuse and mental health problems. During the summer of 2001, Tracey participated in, but did not complete, a drug treatment program. On October 16, 2001 the court removed the children from Tracey's care and placed them with Tracey's former husband and three of their half-siblings. In April 2002, the court put the children in the custody of DHS for foster home placement.
Tracey participated in substance abuse services in Iowa City from January to March 2002, relapsed shortly after discharge, and returned to, but did not complete the program or aftercare. She returned to the program in October 2002, but left in November as a result of refusing to comply with recommendations. At the time of the termination hearing in January 2003, Tracey again had returned to the residential program.
Tracey has a long history of receiving mental health services to help with various mental health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder, bi-polar disorder, and borderline personality disorder. She seldom followed through with recommendations for ongoing services. At the time of the termination hearing, she was receiving mental health services through the University of Iowa.
Following a hearing, the court terminated Tracey's parental rights to Alexis and Kianna under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2003) (child four years old or older cannot be returned home) and to Kandyce under section 232.116(1)(h) (child under four years old cannot be returned home).
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1993); In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). The grounds for termination must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re M.W., 458 N.W.2d 847, 850 (Iowa 1990). A parent has the right to due process and a fair trial when the State seeks to terminate parental rights. In re R.B., 493 N.W.2d 897, 898 (Iowa Ct App. 1992); see also Alsager v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 406 F. Supp. 10, 22 (S.D.Iowa 1975). The parent-child relationship is constitutionally protected. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 98 S.Ct. 549, 554, 54 L.Ed.2d 511, 519 (1978); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 233, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 1542, 32 L.Ed.2d 15, 35 (1972). The issue of whether or not to legally sever the biological ties between parent and child is an issue of grave importance with serious repercussions to the child as well as the biological parents. In re H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d 675, 677 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
The goal of a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding is to improve parenting skills and maintain the parent-child relationship. Id. An underlying issue in a termination action is whether the parent is beyond help. A parent does not have an unlimited amount of time in which to correct his or her deficiencies. See In re D.J.R., 454 N.W.2d 838, 845 (Iowa 1990).
Tracey first claims termination is not in the children's best interest because it would sever the sibling bond. We prefer to keep siblings together when possible. In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). In this case, even if Alexis, Kianna, and Kandyce were returned to Tracey's care, they still would be separated from their other five siblings. We decline to reverse the termination on this ground.
Tracey next claims she has addressed her substance abuse and mental health issues. From the record before us, we cannot agree. Although Tracey was receiving services at the time of the termination, she has not demonstrated the willingness or ability to follow through and receive the benefit. Case history records are entitled to much probative force when a parent's record is being examined. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d at 34. "The crucial days of childhood cannot be suspended while parents experiment with ways to face up to their own problems." In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Iowa 1987), cert. denied sub nom A.C. v. Iowa, 485 U.S. 108, 108 S.Ct. 1474, 99 L.Ed.2d 702 (1988). The children had been out of Tracey's care for over a year at the time of the termination. They cannot wait any longer to see whether Tracey will succeed or relapse again. Alexis has separation anxiety. Kianna has reactive attachment disorder. Under Iowa Code section 232.116(2), we consider the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the children when deciding whether to terminate parental rights. In re C.W., 554 N.W.2d 279, 282 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). All three children need stability and permanency Tracey cannot provide them now.
Tracey finally argues her rights should not be terminated because she now has the means to provide for her children. One of the concerns noted by the court was the instability in Tracey's housing. During the pendency of the case, she had moved about sixteen times to twelve different locations. In 2002 Tracey was approved for SSI benefits and became eligible for Title XIX benefits. Tracey now has her housing provided. At the time of the termination hearing, however, Tracey was involved in treatment including partial hospitalization. Her acquisition of housing addressed the court's concern, but does not support a finding the children could safely be returned to her care.