Opinion
No. 2-438 / 01-1990.
Filed June 19, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, NANCY BAUMGARTNER, District Associate Judge.
Mother appeals order terminating her relationship with her daughter. AFFIRMED.
John Bishop, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Stephen Swift, Cedar Rapids, for appellee father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, Denver D. Dillard, County Attorney, and Lance Heeren and Kelly Kaufman, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellee-State.
Lucy Harrington, Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by HAYDEN, PETERSON, and HARRIS, Senior Judges.
Senior Judges assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2001).
This parent-child termination case differs from most we encounter. Though the facts here are not unique, it is far more common when a parent's indifference to a child leads to neglect and eventually to danger. The mother here feels bonded with her daughter and cannot be charged with total indifference to her welfare. Although the mother has other serious problems, the real danger to the child stems from the mother's unwillingness, or inability, to escape from the child's father. His savage physical abuse of the mother, coupled with his drug addiction, creates an intolerable environment for the child. The mother's repeated exposure of the child to extreme violence poses a chilling threat to her safety. The trial court was correct in ordering termination.
The mother (Ke.) and father (Le.) are not married, but have "been together since 1992." Their child (Ch.) was born May 6, 1996. The parents' relationship has been replete with drug abuse and domestic violence, the beatings increasing both in frequency and intensity. The first child abuse assessment involving Ch. was in November 1999 when Ch. was injured while present when Le. assaulted Ke. Ke. had been living with her mother several months because of an assault by Le. the previous April, but had moved back with Le. in violation of a no-contact court order.
Another child abuse assessment was completed May 19, 2000. Ke. was arrested for parole violation, and an arrest warrant was out for Le. by reason of another assault on Ke. Ch. was injured during this assault. The trial court correctly summarized the record this way:
Ch. was interviewed for the May 19, 2000 assessment. She told the child abuse investigator that her daddy was mean and that he hurts her mommy. She related seeing several incidents where her father hit her mother, including the time he slammed her mother's head into a sink. The child saw lots of blood on that occasion. The child stated that she was afraid of her father. Ch. was adjudicated a child in need of assistance on June 20, 2000, and her temporary custody was placed with her maternal grandmother, S.W. She has remained in her grandmother's custody since her adjudication date. At disposition, the child's custody was placed with S.W.
The pattern of abuse was repeated time and again. Tragically, Ke. will not stay away from Le.
The trial court ordered termination of Ch.'s relationship with both her parents under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) (1999). It provides parental rights can be terminated if (1) children have been adjudicated in need of assistance; (2) they have been removed from physical custody of their parents at least twelve of the last eighteen months-or for twelve consecutive months; (3) any trial period at home has been less than thirty days; and (4) there is clear and convincing evidence that at the present time the children cannot be returned to the custody of their parent without being "children in need of assistance" as provided in section 232.102.
Le., the father, does not appeal termination. Ke.'s sole challenge in her appeal addresses only whether Ch. can be returned to her parents. She bases her stand, not on any claims she or Le. can provide for Ch.'s safety, but on how well Ch. is doing in her long-standing placement with Ke.'s own mother. The mother has filed a separate brief, urging affirmance. Her position is persuasive. The order of termination was correct.
AFFIRMED.