Opinion
No. 2-343 / 02-0333.
Filed April 24, 2002.
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 minor son. AFFIRMED.
Mary Baird Krafka of Krafka Law Office, Ottumwa, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, M. Elise Pippin, Assistant Attorney General, and Victoria Siegel, County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Cynthia Hucks of Box Box, Ottumwa, for minor child.
Considered by VOGEL P.J., and MAHAN and EISENHAUER, JJ.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her minor son pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(f) and (k) (Supp. 2001). She contends she was not afforded reasonable accommodation for her disability as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Department of Human Services (DHS) failed to provide reasonable efforts to reunify her and her son. She argues there was insufficient evidence to support termination by clear and convincing evidence, and claims termination was not in the child's best interests. We review these claims de novo. SeeIn re M.T., 613 N.W.2d 690, 691 (Iowa Ct.App. 2000).
The court cites to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(e) and (j) (2001); however, the applicable law in this termination is correctly cited as Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(f) and (k) (Supp. 2001) due to an amendment to section 232.116 that renumbered the sections but did not substantively alter them.
We find the mother did not preserve error with regard to her claims that she was not afforded reasonable accommodation for her disability in accordance with the ADA, and that DHS failed to make reasonable reunification efforts. A challenge to the sufficiency of services should be raised in the course of the child in need of assistance proceedings. In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994). Because the mother did not raise the ADA or lack of reasonable efforts claims at the appropriate times, we, like the trial court, decline to address these issues.
With respect to the mother's remaining arguments, we find clear and convincing evidence supports termination under section 232.116(1)(k), and termination was in the child's best interest. In order to terminate parental rights, the State was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence the child was adjudicated in need of assistance, the mother suffers from chronic mental illness, and the child cannot be returned to his mother's care within a reasonable time. See In re B.B., 598 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999);Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(k). Here, the child has been adjudicated in need of assistance, and the mother has a history of mental illness and substance abuse. She has been diagnosed with dysthymic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and borderline personality disorder. The only question then is whether the child can be returned to her care within a reasonable time. We find he cannot.
The child was removed from his mother's care after witnessing one of her many suicide attempts. He had been out of his mother's care for over a year and a half while the mother made only minimal progress with her mental health and substance abuse issues. During that time, the mother required numerous hospitalizations due to her continued suicidal thoughts. She also admitted she continued to use marijuana. Meanwhile, the child was doing well in foster care. He had expressed his fear of his mother and his interest in being adopted.
A mother's past actions are evidence of the quality of her future care. In re K.F., 437 N.W.2d 559, 560 (Iowa 1989). We therefore find the child cannot be returned to his mother's care within a reasonable period of time as required under section 232.116(1)(k). Children should not be forced to endlessly await the maturity of a natural parent. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000). At some point, the rights and needs of the child rise above the rights and needs of the parent. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). Looking at long-range and immediate interests, we conclude termination is in the best interest of the child. See In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997).
AFFIRMED.