Opinion
No. 1-601 / 01-0554.
Filed February 20, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, LUCY J. GAMON, District Associate Judge.
Mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their children. AFFIRMED.
John J. Bishop, Cedar Rapids, for appellant-mother.
Kathryn J. Salazar, Washington, for appellant-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Eric R. Goers, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Steven Carter, Fairfield, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Heard by HUITINK, P.J., and VOGEL and EISENHAUER, JJ.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings .
Parents appeal the decision of the juvenile court that terminated their parental rights to their children. The mother claims the State failed to show the children could not be returned to her care and termination is not in the children's best interests. The father claims the State did not make reasonable efforts to reunite him with the children. He also claims the juvenile court should have granted his request to continue the termination hearing for an additional six months. We affirm.
Diane is the mother of Joshua, born in September 1984; Billie, born in December 1988; Samantha, born in April 1990; Shawn, born in March 1992; and Racheal, born in October 1993. Charles is the father of Billie, Samantha, Shawn, and Racheal. Joshua's father is Mark. Mark's parental rights are not at issue in these proceedings.
The family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) in September 1998 after police officers found ingredients and equipment to manufacture methamphetamine in the family's home. Diane and Charles both admitted habitual methamphetamine use. Charles was arrested and jailed. Diane entered substance abuse treatment. The children were placed in foster care. They were subsequently adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA) under Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent's failure to exercise care in supervising child) and (n) (parent's drug or alcohol abuse results in child not receiving adequate care) (1997).
Diane completed treatment, and the children were returned to her care in November 1998. The family received homemaker and family-centered services. Charles was placed on probation as a result of the criminal charges against him, and he also returned to the family's home. In June 1999 Charles tested positive for methamphetamine use. As a result, his probation was revoked, and he was incarcerated. Charles remained incarcerated at the time of the termination hearing resulting in this appeal.
The children were again removed from Diane's care in March 2000, because of the unsanitary condition of the family's home and resulting risk to the children. At that time Diane was receiving homemaker services, but was nevertheless unable to comply with the court's expectations. A psychological evaluation resulted in Diane's diagnosis of dysthymia (depression). Although medication and treatment were prescribed, Diane failed to follow these treatment recommendations.
In June 2000 Diane also tested positive for methamphetamine. Her whereabouts were unknown to DHS for approximately nine weeks from mid-August to mid-October 2000. In November 2000 Diane began to attend parenting skill development sessions. She also resumed visitation with the children in February 2001.
The State petitioned to terminate Diane's and Charles's parental rights. The termination hearing was held in March 2001. At the conclusion of the hearing the juvenile court found that Diane's depression prevented her from resuming care of the children. The court also determined that Charles's criminal propensities interfered with his ability to care for the children. As a result, the court found that the children could not be returned to their parents' custody and accordingly terminated parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) (1999) (child four or older, child CINA, removed from home for twelve or last eighteen months, and child cannot be returned home). The court placed Joshua in the custody of his father, Mark. The remaining children were placed in the department's custody pending their eventual adoption.
II. Scope of Review .
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). Our primary concern is the best interests of the children. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Iowa 2000).
III. Diane .
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence. Diane claims the State did not present sufficient evidence to warrant termination of her parental rights. She contends the State failed to prove the children could not be returned to her care. She cites her recent acquisition of suitable housing and employment as evidence the children could safely be returned to her care. We disagree.
A court must reasonably limit the time for parents to be in a position to assume care of their children because patience with parents can soon translate into intolerable hardship for the children. In re A.Y.H., 508 N.W.2d 92, 96 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). The crucial days of childhood cannot be suspended while parents experiment with ways to face up to their own problems. In re D.A., 506 N.W.2d 478, 479 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993). At some point, the rights and needs of the children rise above the rights and needs of the parents. J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d at 781.
Our de novo review of the record discloses clear and convincing evidence indicating the children cannot safely be returned to Diane's care. Diane still suffers from depression and has yet to follow through with recommended treatment and medication for this condition. In addition, it is far from clear that Diane has successfully addressed her substance abuse problem or that her housekeeping skills have sufficiently improved to accommodate the children's needs. We conclude Diane's parental rights were properly terminated under section 232.116(1)(e).
B. Best Interests. Diane alternatively claims termination of her parental rights is not in the children's best interests. She claims the evidence shows a strong bond exists between her and the children. Diane also argues that termination of her parental rights would result in the children's separation from each other.
Even if the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights are met, the decision to terminate must still be in the best interests of the children. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 389, 400 (Iowa 1994). In determining the best interests of a child, the court looks to the child's long-range and immediate interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). The court must consider the physical, mental, and emotional conditions and needs of the child in deciding to terminate parental rights. In re C.W., 554 N.W.2d 279, 282 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996).
Diane's argument ignores the emotional effect her parental failures have had on the children. There is evidence that the children expressed disappointment with Diane for her nine-week hiatus from their lives. There is also evidence that Diane's failure to address her substance abuse and mental health issues has otherwise had a negative impact on the emotional well-being of her children. Additionally, the children have told social workers that they prefer to be adopted because they can no longer trust or depend on their mother to care for them. We believe this evidence belies Diane's claim of a strong bond with the children and accordingly reject Diane's best-interests argument.
IV. Charles .
A. Reasonable Efforts. DHS must "make every reasonable effort to return the child to the child's home as quickly as possible consistent with the best interests of the child." Iowa Code § 232.102(7). The reasonable efforts concept covers efforts to prevent and eliminate the need for removal. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000). The focus is on services to improve parenting. In re T.A.L. 505 N.W.2d 480, 485 (Iowa 1993). Reasonable efforts also include visitation designed to facilitate reunification while protecting the child from the harm responsible for the removal. In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343, 345 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996).
Charles contends the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite him with his children. Specifically, he claims the juvenile court failed to accommodate his January 2001 request for additional visitation with the children. We disagree.
The juvenile court found that while Charles should probably have been provided with more visits with the children, DHS nevertheless made reasonable efforts to reunite him with the children, and we agree. As the juvenile court stated, "The primary purpose of visits is to maintain the bond between a parent and their children, and this purpose has been accomplished in this case." We also note Charles did not seek increased visitation until January 2001. Charles was able to maintain contact with the children through cards and letters.
We also find Charles has not addressed the issues which led to the children's removal in the first instance. Charles was originally placed on probation. As the juvenile court noted, at this point one would expect Charles would have made every effort to be reunited with his family, but instead he continued to use illegal drugs, and he was sent to prison. Due to Charles's incarceration he was not able to participate in services designed to reunite him with the children. Charles's substance abuse problems, and concomitant legal problems, remain an impediment to his ability to care for the children. We conclude Charles's parental rights were properly terminated under section 232.116(1)(e).
B. Continuance. At the termination hearing, Charles testified he might be paroled in about a month. He sought a continuance for six months to allow him to establish a home and employment after he was released from prison. The juvenile court denied the request for a continuance. On appeal, Charles asserts he should have been given another six months to show he could care for the children.
We review a motion for continuance under an abuse of discretion standard and will reverse only when injustice will result to the party desiring the continuance. C.W., 554 N.W.2d at 281. Denial of a motion to continue must be unreasonable under the circumstances before we will reverse. Id. We may look at a parent's past performance in determining whether a continuance of a termination proceeding should be granted. In re K.A., 516 N.W.2d 35, 37 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994). The juvenile court is not obligated to grant a motion for continuance because "children simply cannot wait for responsible parenting." In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 1990).
We find no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court's decision denying the request for a continuance. It was not clear Charles would be granted parole, and it most certainly was not clear he would be able to assume care of the children in six months. This case had been ongoing since September 1998. The children should not be required to wait any longer for permanency.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court terminating the parental rights of Diane and Charles to their children.
AFFIRMED.