Opinion
No. 2-1018 / 02-1795.
Filed December 30, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, GERALD W. MAGEE, Judge.
Mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her daughter. AFFIRMED.
Cynthia Foos, Assistant Public Defender, Mason City, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Paul L. Martin, County Attorney, and Gregg Rosenbladt, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Mark Young, Mason City, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and ZIMMER and HECHT, JJ.
Karin D. is the mother of Dallas D., who was born February 21, 1999. Dallas first came to the attention of the Department of Human Services (DHS) in March of 1999 when he was hospitalized and thought to be underweight for his age. He was removed for a few days until improvements were made in the cleanliness of the home. HHeHeIn April of that year, Dallas was voluntarily placed with DHS due to concerns of domestic violence between Karin and Dallas's father, Dale. He was returned to Karin on May 26, when Dale left the home. Following a hearing on June 22, 1999, Dallas was found to be a child in need of assistance (CINA) but remained in the home with Karin. Services were offered to and participated in by Karin. In June of 2001, Dallas was again voluntarily placed in foster care, this time due to concerns about inappropriate males in Karin's home, in particular Ken Troge, Dallas's health, the unsanitary condition of the home, and Karin's mental health problems.
On April 25, 2002, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate Karin's parental rights to Dallas. Following a hearing, the juvenile court terminated Karin's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (Supp. 2001). The court expressed concerns with Karin's mental health, her inability or refusal to accommodate Dallas's chronic asthma, and her association with and dependence on dangerous and abusive men. Karin appeals from this order.
We review termination 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).
In order to terminate Karin's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h) the State was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the child is three or younger, has been adjudicated CINA, has been removed from the parent's home for six of the last twelve months, and cannot be returned to the parent's home. Karin contends the court erred in (1) ruling on facts not in the record or taking facts out of context, (2) failing to hold the State to the standard of clear and convincing proof, and (3) failing to consider Dallas's best interests and by disregarding her bond with Dallas.
On our de novo review, we conclude the court properly assessed the evidence presented and terminated Karin's parental rights. Karin's severe mental health issues, hospitalizations, and unsuccessful treatment have impacted Dallas's development and put him at risk. See In re J.W.D., 456 N.W.2d 214, 218 (Iowa 1990) (noting a mental illness may be considered in determining whether termination is appropriate). David Fox, a psychiatrist who had worked with Karin for a number of years, testified as to his work with her. Although his basic conclusion appears to be that Karin's mental health status should not preclude her from caring for Dallas, his testimony did reveal a substantial history of troubling mental health problems. As did other witnesses and the trial court, we have serious concerns as to the impact Karin's mental health issues continue to have on Karin's care for her young child. Fox testified that Karin has exhibited major depression, suicidal ideation, and emotional overreaction. He admitted that Karin had, within several months of the trial on this matter, been admitted to a hospital and engaged in self-mutilating behavior. He also expressed his "biggest" concern as being that Karin engages in questionable relationships with inappropriate individuals. Further, he could only describe as "guarded," his opinion that Karin could eventually shed her mental illness diagnosis.
Despite guidance and numerous services offered, Karin does not deal appropriately with Dallas's medical condition and is generally not able to maintain a physically healthy home for Dallas. The Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA), who had twenty-four in-person and twenty-eight phone contacts with Karin, reported an ongoing problem with smoke and filth in the home. Dallas was returned two times to Karin's care, and each time required another removal. Finally, Karin has exhibited extremely poor judgment in her relationships with men and people in general, which, like the juvenile court, we believe subjects Dallas to continuing dangers and instability.
Clear and convincing evidence thus supports the termination. Moreover, we agree with the trial court's detailed ruling, concluding termination is in Dallas's best interests.