Opinion
No. 3-361 / 03-0708
Filed June 13, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, L. Vern Robinson, Judge.
A mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her daughter. The maternal grandmother intervenes as to custody. AFFIRMED.
Richard Mitvalsky of Gray, Stefani Mitvalsky, Cedar Rapids, for appellant-grandmother.
Michael Fay, Cedar Rapids, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Denver D. Dillard, County Attorney, and Lance Heeren, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Mary Chicchelly of Seidl Chicchelly, Cedar Rapids, for child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vogel, JJ.
Heather is the mother of Jamie, born January 24, 2002. Heather and her family first came to the attention of the Department of Human Services (DHS) in February 2001, when Heather was taken to the hospital for an emergency C-Section after being physically abused by her husband, William, resulting in her placenta tearing from the uterine wall. That child and an older sibling were removed from Heather's care. In August 2002, Heather's parental rights to those two children were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) and 232.116(1)(h) (Supp. 2001). Jamie was removed from Heather's custody a week after her birth; she remains in foster care with her two half-siblings. On August 14, 2002, upon stipulation by the parties, Jamie was adjudicated in need of assistance (CINA). Following a hearing on the State's petition, the court terminated Heather's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(e), 232.116(1)(g), and 232.116(1)(h) (2003). Heather appeals from this order. Jamie's maternal grandmother, Cheri, intervened in the termination proceeding, seeking custody of Jamie if Heather's rights were terminated. The juvenile court denied Cheri's request for custody, and she appeals.
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).
Termination of Heather's Parental Rights. On appeal, Heather does not challenge the grounds upon which her rights were terminated, rather she pleads for a policy change in Iowa law. In her petition, Heather states, "DHS should adopt new policies and practices to improve its response to families experiencing domestic violence." In particular, Heather asserts a constitutional violation when children are removed from their mother's care simply because the mother is a victim of domestic violence.
We agree domestic violence not only hurts the intended victim, but also adversely impacts other members of the household, either by way of disrupting family harmony or by posing a danger to others in the household. However, we disagree with Heather's general statement that children are removed from their mother's care simply because the mothers are victims of domestic violence. The reason children are removed is a failure of the abused mother to protect the children from harm, even after being offered strong support systems to begin a new life away from the abuser. See In re S.O., 483 N.W.2d 602, 603 (Iowa 1992).
The record establishes by clear and convincing evidence Heather could not protect her children from the violence she has subjected them to in the past. Heather maintains a relationship and continues to live with her abusive husband, William, although she is to have no contact with him due to the past abuse. Heather has frequently lied to the DHS workers and service providers about her relationship with William. Though Heather claimed to be employed, she failed to submit adequate proof to DHS as required. On one occasion she submitted a pay stub but it appeared to be altered, showing her personal information in handwriting. Frustrating to the receipt of services was Heather's frequent moves without informing DHS of her new addresses. Despite being offered numerous services, Heather did not take advantage of the opportunities to correct her situation and improve her parenting skills. At the time of the termination hearing, Heather was incarcerated with several criminal charges and probation violations pending. She cannot continue to paint herself as a victim when she has been offered a myriad of services to break away from a violent person, yet continues to lie to service workers and all who have invested their time and talents to give her the tools she needs to achieve a more stable life. By her own continuation of criminal activity, Heather has passed up opportunities to parent her children. We affirm the termination.
Intervention for Custody. Cheri Nagel, Jamie's maternal grandmother, intervened in the termination proceedings seeking custody of Jamie if Heather's rights were terminated. The district court, having found Jamie could not be protected from harm if returned to Heather's care, also found Cheri would not be a satisfactory barrier between Jamie and the risk for abuse. Citing at least two occasions when Cheri allowed Heather access to the children against court orders, the district court could see the future would hold no guarantees for Jamie's safety if placed with Cheri. Based on the facts and with great deference to the credibility findings of the trial court, In re Marriage of Forbes, 570 N.W.2d 757, 759 (Iowa 1997), we affirm.