Opinion
No. 3-178 / 03-0236.
Filed April 30, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, GREGORY D. BRANDT, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two children, D.T and S.W., and a father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, S.W. AFFIRMED.
Debra Hockett-Clark, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Joseph Renzo, Des Moines, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, and Jon Anderson, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Nicole Garbis Nolan of the Youth Law Center, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and MAHAN and HECHT, JJ.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two children, D.T and S.W., and a father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, S.W. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Tauwana is the mother of D.K., born October 7, 1998, and S.W., born July 17, 2000. Randy is the father of S.W. Due to substance abuse and domestic violence issues of Tauwana and Randy, both children were adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA) on June 6, 2001. The children were first removed from Tauwana's custody on June 21, 2001, and again on August 8, 2001, because Tauwana tested positive for methamphetamine and cocaine use and was noncompliant with drug screening. After the latter removal, a dispositional hearing was held, and the juvenile court adopted the case permanency plan. Review hearings were held on February 28, 2002, and May 24, 2002. At each of these hearings, the juvenile court determined the children should not be returned to their parents because the parents needed to complete parenting classes, comply with in-home services, and remain substance-free.
On July 19, 2002, the State filed a petition to terminate Tauwana and Randy's parental rights. Hearing was held on September 19 and October 9, 2002. The juvenile court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order on January 24, 2003. In this order, the juvenile court terminated Tauwana and Randy's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(c), 232.116(1)(g), and 232.116(1)(k) (2001). Both Tauwana and Randy appeal.
The juvenile court cites Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), 232.116(1)(g), and 232.116(1)(l) (2001), but based on the termination requirements referenced by the juvenile court, we believe 232.116(1)(c), 232.116(1)(g), and 232.116(1)(k) (2001) to be the appropriate statutes. Those statutes are now codified under sections 232.116(1)(d), 232.116(1)(h), and 232.116(l) (2003).
II. Standard of Review. 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 children. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). While the district court terminated the parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we will affirm if at least one ground has been proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re A.J., 553 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996).
III. Termination of Tauwana's Parental Rights. Tauwana contends the juvenile court erred in three respects: (1) the State failed to provide reasonable efforts at reunification; (2) the juvenile court should have granted her more time for reunification; and (3) the determination that the children could not be safely returned to her care was not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
The State must show reasonable efforts for reunification were made as part of its ultimate proof that the children cannot be safely returned to the care of a parent. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492-493 (Iowa 2000). The State provided Tauwana services including family centered services, family preservation, couples therapy, substance abuse evaluation, substance abuse treatment, supervised visitation, and relative placement. Although Tauwana contends the State failed to provide reasonable services by discontinuing subsidization of her drug screens, the State did pay for the urinalyses (UAs) through March, 2002, until funding was depleted. Although Tauwana claims she could not afford to pay for the drug screens herself, the record reveals she is employed, pays minimal rent, and was able to support a smoking habit. After our review of the record, we find the State provided reasonable efforts at reunification.
Tauwana argues the juvenile court should have granted her additional time for reunification. At the time of the hearing the children had been removed from Tauwana's care for fourteen months, but Tauwana had not significantly improved her ability to care for the children. She testified it would be at least one more year before she would be ready to care for the children on her own. Child custody should be quickly fixed and little disturbed. In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Iowa 1987). The expert testimony established that due to their young age and lack of bonding with their mother, the children's greatest need is to get established in a permanent, safe living environment. The experts explained the harm the children would incur if they were required to wait another year in the hope that their mother would then be ready to parent them. We find no error in the juvenile court's decision not to grant Tauwana additional time for reunification.
Tauwana's final argument is the juvenile court's determination that the children could not be returned to her care, as required by Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g)(4), was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. After our de novo review of the record, we find clear and convincing evidence supporting the juvenile court's decision to terminate Tauwana's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(g). The children were initially removed because of Tauwana's drug use and her noncompliance with the State's drug testing requirements. At the time of the hearing, Tauwana had not seen her children in three months because her visitation had been suspended due to her failure to provide regular drug screens. Although she testified she was unable to afford the drug screens, Tauwana testified she is employed and supports a smoking habit. Tauwana testified that she was planning to enter the House of Mercy because she wanted to work on her parenting skills, she hoped to obtain counseling while there, and because she generally needed help getting back on her feet. She testified she expected it would take a year to achieve those goals. Tauwana has had well over a year to position herself so she could provide a safe and stable living environment for her two children and has failed to do that. We affirm.
IV. Termination of Randy's Parental Rights. Randy appeals the termination of his parental rights on two grounds: (1) the State failed to provide reasonable efforts at reunification; and (2) the determination that his daughter could not be safely returned to his care is not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Randy was provided the same services Tauwana was provided, including family centered services, family preservation, couples therapy, drug screens, substance abuse evaluation, substance abuse treatment, supervised visitation, relative placement, psychosocial evaluations, and domestic abuse intervention services (DAIS). Despite the availability of these services, Randy provided drug screens only sporadically, claiming he could not afford them, and at the time of the hearing, had not yet completed the DAIS course. He claims both of these failures are due to his inability to afford them, yet he is fully employed as a manager at Wal-Mart. Randy's main complaint with the services provided seems to be the suspension of his visitation rights.
Our review of the record indicates Randy's troubles with visitation began when he missed six of eight scheduled visits without providing advance notice to the social worker supervising the visits. Although Randy claimed excuses for each missed visit (conflicting work schedule, lack of transportation, etc.), this resulted in the children's schedule being disrupted for an absent father. Eventually, the social worker told Randy he would need to confirm he would show up for visits. Randy failed to confirm the next two visits, and the social worker did not bring the children as scheduled. Although both times Randy called and left angry voicemails for the social worker, he never met the requirement that he confirm his attendance at visitation, and when his visitation was suspended, he did not request it be reinstated. After a de novo review of the record, we find the State did make reasonable efforts in furtherance of reunification.
Atlhough Randy is the father of S.W. only, his testimony indicates his visitation was with both children.
Randy's final argument is that the juvenile court's determination that the children could not safely be returned to his care at the time of the hearing was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Our de novo review of the record indicates that Randy had not seen his daughter in four months prior to the hearing. He was not complying with regular drug testing, despite being fully employed. He had not requested his visitation be reinstated after it was suspended due to his infrequent attendance. When Randy did attend visitation, the in-home worker noted that Randy was consistently uninvolved in the children. Although Randy clearly loves his daughter, his inability to make her a priority to the point of consistently complying with relatively minor requirements such as attending visitation and providing UAs makes us doubt his ability and willingness to provide a safe and stable home for her. We affirm.
V. Conclusion. After our de novo review of the record, we determine that the juvenile court's termination of Tauwana and Randy's parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g) is supported by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm.