Opinion
No. 2-1021 / 02-1797
Filed January 15, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William S. Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.
Mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her two children. Intervenor grandmother also appeals. AFFIRMED.
William Appel, Ottumwa, for appellant mother.
Mary Krafka of Swanstrom Krafka, Ottumwa, for appellant grandmother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, Victoria Siegel, County Attorney, and Karen Woltman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.
Cynthia Hucks, Ottumwa, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Heidi D. is the mother of Marvin D., born August 13, 1996, and Betty Sue D., born June 6, 1999. The Department of Human Services (DHS) became involved with the family when Betty Sue was born with the presence of methamphetamine in her system. Heidi initially agreed to participate in services, but she was later discharged from a substance abuse program for noncompliance. Betty and Marvin were thereafter adjudicated to be in need of assistance, pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (o) (1999), and their legal custody was placed with their maternal grandmother, Joann S. The children were removed to foster care on May 25, 2001, after Heidi failed to provide random urinalyses and had not availed herself of various services and the family's service provider came to believe the family had moved without informing DHS.
On June 21, 2002, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate Heidi's parental rights to Marvin and Betty Sue. Joann S., the children's maternal grandmother, subsequently intervened in the proceedings. Following a trial, the court terminated Heidi's parental rights to Marvin and Betty Sue pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (Supp. 2001) respectively. The court placed the children's custody with DHS for placement by adoption or other permanent placement. Heidi and Joann both appeal from this order.
We review termination of parental rights orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child . In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
Heidi contends the threat of probable harm does not justify termination of her rights and termination is not in the children's best interests. In particular she claims there was an insufficient showing that a return to her care would result in harm or danger to the children. As noted above, Marvin and Betty were first removed when Betty Sue was born affected by methamphetamines. Heidi immediately agreed to attend a substance abuse program, but she was discharged due to noncompliance. Heidi had not made herself available for random drug testing prior to the time of the termination trial. Although, she has made progress in dealing with her drug problem, her drug involvement and its effects on the children pose a significant obstacle to allowing Heidi to resume their care.
Furthermore, Heidi's life is marked by instability and uncertainty, from her lack of stable housing and inability to maintain employment to her numerous relationships with abusive men. Various individuals testified to Heidi's problems with unsuitable paramours and the unsafe and unstable men allowed to be around the children. Heidi was less than honest with service providers regarding her relationships with these men. In addition, Heidi has not shown any measurable progress in various services provided to her and shows a marked immaturity in many of her decisions regarding her care of the children. On our de novo review, we conclude the children cannot be returned to Heidi's care and therefore affirm the termination of her parental rights to Marvin and Betty Sue.
Joann, the children's grandmother, asserts the court erred in placing custody of the children with DHS, rather than with her. On our de novo review, we concur with the district court's decision to continue DHS as the children's guardians and custodians and directing them to establish permanent placement through adoption or other means. Judy Murphy, a social worker with DHS who had been the case manager for Marvin and Betty Sue, testified to her belief that the children could not be placed with Joann. She noted concerns with Joann's health, unstable job history, questionable housing, and her lack of forthrightness with regard to her knowledge about Heidi's various paramours. Moreover, Pam Carder, a child and family resource specialist who worked with the family, testified her primary concern was that Joann protected and shielded Heidi from the consequences of her poor parenting choices and from DHS involvement. She also questioned Joann's inappropriate housing, her ability to protect the children, and her ability to provide for their basic needs. We affirm the juvenile court in this regard.