Opinion
No. 2-292 / 02-0304.
Filed April 24, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, GERALD W. MAGEE, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Letitia Turner, Public Defender's Office, Mason City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, M. Elise Pippin, Assistant Attorney General, and Gregg Rosenbladt, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Mark Young, Mason City, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her third child. We affirm.
Deanna and her husband Christopher had a relationship marred by substance and domestic abuse. Both had criminal histories and had served time in prison during the 1990's.
In 1998, Deanna gave birth to C.J. He had marijuana in his system. The Department of Human Services (department) obtained a removal order placing C.J. with his father while Deanna underwent inpatient drug abuse treatment. After she completed the month-long program, the department recommended C.J.'s return to her care. The juvenile court adopted the recommendation.
Deanna participated in substance abuse counseling and family therapy, obtained a job, and maintained a home for herself, her young son and Christopher. However, her relationship with Christopher remained volatile, and police were soon called to quell a disturbance. C.J. was sent to the home of Deanna's parents.
Christopher was initially ordered to have no contact with Deanna, but the order was later modified to permit cohabitation, subject to certain conditions, including forbearance from domestic violence.
Despite this setback, the subsequent arrests of both parents on various charges, and positive drug tests, the department continued to assist Deanna in recovering her child. Nine months after the second removal, C.J. was again returned to her care, with a stipulation that she not permit anyone else to live with her.
The reunification was short-lived. Within three months, Deanna abandoned her child at her daycare provider's home and relapsed into substance abuse. Although she checked into an inpatient psychiatric treatment program, her husband informed the department that she quickly checked herself out. She was subsequently arrested and jailed on various charges, and C.J. was again returned to his grandparents. Deanna was ultimately convicted and sentenced to a prison term at the Women's Correctional Facility in Mitchellville.
The State petitioned to terminate both parents' rights to C.J. The juvenile court granted the petition pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(g) (1999) (child three or under cannot be returned to home) and (d) (parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child). Only Deanna has appealed. She contends (1) the court should have postponed termination in light of her imminent release from prison; (2) the department did not make reasonable efforts to reunite her with C.J.; (3) the State failed to prove C.J. could not be returned to her home; and (4) it was not in C.J.'s best interests to terminate her rights. On our de novo review, we find little if any support for these contentions.
The pertinent provisions are reorganized in the current Iowa Code provisions under 232.116(1) (h) and (e) (Supp. 2001).
First, at the time of termination, Deanna was months away from assuming a parenting role. Although she hoped to gain entry into a supervised living program upon her release, a department supervisor testified the parents would require "a lengthy period of time" to demonstrate stability in their lives and an ability to provide C.J. with stable care. Additionally, when given chances to demonstrate this stability, Deanna failed.
Second, there is no question the department satisfied its reasonable efforts mandate in this case. See Iowa Code § 232.102(7) and (10)(a). In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492-93 (Iowa 2000). The department afforded Deanna inpatient and outpatient drug treatment and family therapy and continued to work with her even after she relapsed. Department employees twice returned C.J. to her care and provided supplemental services such as transportation and daycare assistance to facilitate the transition. Despite these extensive services, Deanna claims the department employees failed her because they did not place her in a long-term treatment program. We disagree. At least two employees advised Deanna she was ineligible for such a program because she was not actively using drugs. Additionally, the record reflects Deanna had in fact undergone substance abuse treatment three times, twice in 1992 and once in 1997, without success. Moreover, a counselor who treated her after C.J.'s birth testified that the department was receptive to working with Deanna and "wanted to make this work." In short, the department made reasonable efforts to reunify C.J. and Deanna.
Third, the State established by clear and convincing evidence that C.J. could not be returned to Deanna. Deanna was still in prison at the time of the termination hearing. She had no home to which C.J. could be returned. As noted, she would need months to make the transition to unsupervised living. Therefore, this termination element was satisfied.
Finally, the record reflects it was in C.J.'s best interests to terminate her rights. C.J. had been with his grandparents for eleven months at the time of the termination hearing. They indicated a willingness to adopt him, as they had done with Deanna's second child. Deanna already had been given multiple opportunities to demonstrate her caretaking abilities, both with C.J. and her two older children, and had failed each time. A court appointed special advocate stated, "Deanna's past and present history of drug addiction, multiple incarcerations for theft and other violations, and her inability to sustain her efforts with C.J. when she's out of prison puts her at high risk to repeat these habitual patterns in the future." We agree with this assessment. While there is no question Deanna was strongly bonded to C.J. and effectively parented him when she was sober and away from Christopher, she repeatedly succumbed to destructive behavior. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court's termination of her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.