Opinion
No. 2-717 / 02-1151
Filed September 11, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karla J. Fultz, Associate Juvenile Judge.
Mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her three children. AFFIRMED.
Marla Suddreth, Bondurant, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, and Jennifer Galloway, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Michael Bandstra, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
Elizabeth B. is the mother of Ismael M., born September 22, 1998, Nicholas B., born July 16, 2000, and Julio B., born July 10, 2001. The children were removed by consent on July 25, 2001, and placed with their maternal grandmother. On September 11, 2001, they were adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA), pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2), (6)(n), and (6)(o) (2001). On February 13, 2002, the children's guardian ad litem filed a petition to terminate Elizabeth's parental rights to Ismael, Nicholas, and Julio. Following a hearing, the juvenile court terminated Elizabeth's parental rights pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(h) and (l) (Supp. 2001). Elizabeth appeals.
Formerly Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(g) and (k) (2001).
We review these termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). 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 R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995).
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) allows a court to terminate a parent's rights when (1) the child is three years of age or younger, (2) the child has been adjudicated CINA, (3) the child has been removed from the physical custody of the parents for at least six of the last twelve months, or for the last six consecutive months, and (4) there is clear and convincing evidence the child cannot be returned to the custody of the parent. On appeal, Elizabeth only contests the juvenile court's conclusions regarding the fourth element, that the children could not be safely returned to her home at the time of the termination hearing.
On our de novo review of the record, we conclude substantial evidence supports the conclusion Elizabeth's children could not be safely returned to her custody at the time of the termination hearing. Elizabeth's drug abuse and her failure to seriously address her addiction prevent the children from returning to her care. Elizabeth used illegal drugs during her pregnancy with Julio and he was born with methamphetamine in his system. She was also under the influence of drugs while caring for the other children, and a founded child abuse assessment was entered as a result of her use of methamphetamine while in the presence of Nicholas, Ismael, and an older brother.
Despite a variety of services offered by the State after Julio was born with drugs in his system, Elizabeth has not made sufficient progress to prove she is overcoming her drug problem. Elizabeth was required to provide urine analysises (UA's) on a regular basis. Initially, she consistently tested positive for illegal drugs. Elizabeth subsequently failed to provide UA's for a period of time, and when she resumed providing them again tested positive. She failed at a series of inpatient and outpatient drug treatment programs. She has not taken rehabilitation and counseling seriously, and provides us with no confidence in her ability to provide suitable parenting in the forseeable future. See In re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981) (noting we gain insight for the determination of the children's long-range best interests from evidence of the parent's past performance).
Elizabeth has a spotty employment record and was on probation at the time of the termination hearing after a deferred judgment for second-degree theft was revoked. Furthermore, she has previously had her rights to two other children terminated in the State of Washington based on admitted physical abuse. These factors, and other unaddressed shortcomings, certainly support the juvenile court's determination that the children cannot be safely returned to Elizabeth's custody. See In re T.A.L., 505 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Iowa 1993) (noting the statutory termination provisions are preventive as well as remedial, and are designed to prevent probable harm to children).
Accordingly we conclude the best interests of the children call for termination of Elizabeth's parental rights.
AFFIRMED.