Opinion
No. 4-857 / 04-1775
Filed December 22, 2004
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, D.J. Stovall, Judge.
A mother and father appeal the juvenile court's order terminating their parental rights to two children. AFFIRMED.
Cathleen Siebrecht, Altoona, for appellant-mother.
Brad Schroeder of Hartung Schroeder, Des Moines, for appellant-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Olu Salami and Celene Gogerty, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellee-State.
Jill McClain of Drake Legal Clinic, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Mahan and Hecht, JJ.
A mother and father appeal from the juvenile court order terminating their parental rights to their two children. The father contends there is insufficient evidence to support termination. The mother contends the State should have allowed her additional time for reunification and the termination is not in the children's best interest. On de novo review, we affirm.
Background facts and proceedings.
Lindsey and Edwin are the parents of Hannah, born in October 2001, and Brandon, born in August 2002. Both parents have substance abuse problems they have not addressed. Hannah was removed in 2001 and placed with her maternal grandmother. When the grandmother tested positive for methamphetamine use a month later, Hannah was placed in foster care. In May 2002 Hannah was returned to her mother's care. In November 2003 she was again removed from her parents' care because of their drug use. Brandon also was removed from his parents' care in November 2003. Both children have remained in foster care since November 2003.
In August 2004 the State petitioned to terminate the parental rights of both parents under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (e), (h), (i), and (l) (2003). Following a contested termination hearing in September, the court terminated the parental rights of both parents under all the sections pled in the petition.
Scope and standard of review.
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1993). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2001).
Discussion.
A. Edwin.
The father contends the State did not prove the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. He does not provide any specifics about how the State's evidence is lacking even though the petition form contains an instruction to set forth specific legal questions. It instructs, "General conclusions, such as the trial court's ruling is not supported by law or the facts are not acceptable." Nevertheless, we choose to address Edwin's insufficient evidence claim.
In October 2001 Hannah was found to be in need of assistance under Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2), (n), and (o) (2001). In January 2004 Brandon was found to be in need of assistance under the same sections of the 2003 code. Edwin was offered services, but was particularly resistant to services addressing his substance abuse. Because of his lack of progress addressing his substance abuse, Edwin never progressed beyond supervised visitation. We find clear and convincing evidence the circumstances which led to the children being found in need of assistance continue to exist despite the services offered. Edwin's chronic substance abuse would put the children at risk of adjudicatory harm if returned to his care. The neglect and lack of supervision would pose a significant risk to the children. Continued substance abuse services would not correct the problem within a reasonable period of time, so the children could not be returned to his care within a reasonable period of time given the young age of the children. We find clear and convincing evidence supports termination under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1) (d), (e), (h), (i), and (l). We affirm the termination of Edwin's parental rights to Hannah and Brandon.
B. Lindsey.
The mother does not challenge any of the statutory grounds for termination. Rather, she contends the court should have granted her additional time for reunification and the court should not have terminated her parental rights because of the strong bond the children have with her. She argues she plans to enter the House of Mercy again and take advantage of their services this time. She asserts the children could be placed in the care of the maternal grandparents until she is able to care for them.
At the time of the termination hearing, the children had been out of their parents' care for about ten months. Knowing her substance abuse would prevent their return to her care and could lead to termination of her parental rights, Lindsey continued to resist services and has failed to address her substance abuse. She went to the House of Mercy once before, but nothing has changed. The children were removed in November 2003 because of her drug use. At one point she tried to submit a substituted sample for a UA. She admits using cocaine and marijuana in March 2004. She testified at the termination hearing she had used methamphetamine just four or five days before the hearing. Granting her additional time to pursue reunification would only delay permanency for the children and we find it unlikely to result in any changes in her substance abuse. We also find the children could not be placed with the maternal grandparents. Hannah was placed with them initially, but removed when the grandmother was found to be using illegal drugs. We affirm the juvenile court's decision not to grant Lindsey additional time for reunification.
Under Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c) the juvenile court may choose not to terminate a parent's rights even though grounds exist if the court finds termination "would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship." Iowa Code § 232.116(30(c). Lindsey testified the children say they miss her and want to go to their grandma's house. She also testified they know her when she comes for visitation. Lindsey testified she missed two weekly visitations in July or August 2004. While we recognize Lindsey's desire to raise her own children and the loss she feels at their removal, we do not find such a close parent-child bond that termination of Lindsey's parental rights would be detrimental to the children on that basis. The bond clearly is not strong enough to give Lindsey the incentive to deal with her substance abuse — even in the face of losing them. We affirm the juvenile court's termination of Lindsey's parental rights to Hannah and Brandon.