Opinion
No. 3-572 / 03-0984
Filed August 13, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Constance Cohen, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals termination of her parental rights to her daughter. AFFIRMED.
Debra Hockett-Clark, Des Moines, for appellant-mother.
J. Michael Mayer, Des Moines, for father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, Celene Coffman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Barbara Romar, Des Moines, for child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, JJ.
Wafa is the mother of Faith, born May 21, 2002. The Department of Human Services (DHS) removed Faith from her mother's care upon birth because of concerns stemming from the removal and subsequent termination of parental rights to three of Wafa's older children. Faith was returned to Wafa's care on May 29, 2002, on condition she remain at House of Mercy. On July 16, 2002, Faith was adjudicated in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n) (2001) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent's failure to exercise care in supervising child; and parent's drug or alcohol abuse results in child not receiving adequate care), but remained in Wafa's care upon the continued condition she remain at House of Mercy. On December 4, 2002, Wafa decided to leave House of Mercy resulting in Faith's removal and placement in foster care. The State filed a petition to terminate parental rights on December 17, 2002. Following hearings in February and March 2003, the juvenile court terminated Wafa's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(g) and (l) (Supp. 2001) (adjudicated CINA, parent's rights to another child were terminated, parent does not respond to services; and adjudicated CINA, parent has substance abuse problem, child cannot be returned within a reasonable time) on May 22, 2003. Wafa appeals.
While the juvenile court terminated Wafa's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Codes sections 232.116(1)(e), (g) and (l), the State only alleged (g) and (l) in its petition.
We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). Our primary concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the children. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
Wafa contends (1) she should have been given additional time, (2) the State failed to offer reasonable services to reunify her and Faith, as the termination petition was filed less than two weeks after Faith's removal, (3) there was not clear and convincing evidence that Faith could not be returned to her care, and (4) termination was not in the best interests of Faith.
Wafa claims the court should have granted her more time to reunify with Faith. This is the fourth child removed from Wafa's care. She was involved with DHS for several years with previous children and several months with Faith. "Children simply cannot wait for responsible parenting." In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 1990). Parenting must be constant, responsible, and reliable. Id. Wafa was given sufficient opportunity to make the progress necessary to reunify with Faith, but Wafa chose to continue her previous pattern of behaviors rendering additional time a futile gesture.
We also reject Wafa's assertion that DHS failed to offer reasonable services to reunify her with Faith. While the removal on December 4, 2002, and the termination petition filed on December 17, 2002, were close in time, Wafa knew that if she left House of Mercy, Faith would be removed and DHS would take appropriate action. This compliance with the House of Mercy program had been a requirement since shortly after Faith's birth. Wafa had received numerous and appropriate services prior to the latest removal and services continued until the final hearing date in March 2003. Laura Olsen, a DHS worker, and Amie Pospisil, a foster care worker at Lutheran Social Services, both testified they had ongoing concerns with Wafa's history of substance abuse, poor relationship choices with abusive men, and inability to protect Faith from those men. Wafa had negative UAs while at House of Mercy, however, she missed several UAs after December 4, 2002, which the court correctly considered positive. There was no additional information Wafa had begun reusing illegal substances but there was evidence she had relapsed with alcohol since leaving House of Mercy. On January 16, 2003, Wafa went to a supervised visitation with Faith and was clearly intoxicated. The visit was cancelled.
While at House of Mercy, Wafa was ordered to have no contact with Faith's father, Johnny. On at least two occasions, Wafa had contact with Johnny and both times Faith was present. On multiple occasions Wafa left House of Mercy and was not truthful with the staff as to her whereabouts. Wafa chose to permanently leave House of Mercy in December 2002 to continue her relationship with Johnny with full knowledge, even through advice from her own attorney, that if she did so, Faith would be removed from her custody. Wafa continued to have contact with Johnny who has substance abuse issues as well as domestic abuse concerns. Approximately two weeks after Wafa left House of Mercy she stayed at the Family Violence Center after claiming Johnny had assaulted her. She later stated Johnny did nothing wrong. Olsen testified Wafa's relationship with Johnny is indicative of her overall pattern with men. One of Wafa's previous children had an abusive father and Wafa failed to protect that child, resulting in termination of her parental rights.
Wafa has obtained an apartment, but as Olsen and Pospisil testified, it is nearly empty and the juvenile court did not believe that Wafa actually lived there. Her credibility at the termination hearing was found to be seriously lacking. We defer to those findings. Iowa R.App.P. 6.14(6)( g).
Upon our de novo review we conclude the State presented clear and convincing evidence that Faith could not be returned to Wafa's care at the time of hearing because of her continued contact with Johnny, her unresolved substance abuse issues, and her inability to protect Faith from contact with her father. Further, Faith's best interests are served by her current placement in pre-adoptive foster care. See In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994).