Opinion
No. 4-528 / 04-0681.
July 28, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Gary D. McKenrick, Judge.
A mother appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to two children. AFFIRMED.
Robert J. Phelps, Davenport, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, William Davis, County Attorney, and Gerda Lane, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Cheryl Fullenkamp, Davenport, for appellee-father.
Stephen Newport of Newport Newport, P.L.C., Davenport, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Zimmer, JJ.
Anna, the mother of Johnna and Queyona, appeals from the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her daughters. She contends there is not clear and convincing evidence supporting termination and the court ignored the testimony of the parents and family members that the children could safely be returned to the care of the parents. On de novo review, we affirm.
The juvenile court also terminated the father's parental rights to both children, but he is not a party to this appeal.
Queyona was born in June 1999, and Johnna in October 2000. The Department of Human Services (DHS) has been involved with this family since June 1998 following a founded report of lack of adequate shelter and supervision of the family's other children. In June 2000 one-year-old Queyona pulled a pot of hot coffee off a table and was burned on her chest and back, resulting in a founded report for denial of critical care and lack of adequate shelter. In November 2000 another child received second and third-degree burns when he caught his pajamas on fire while playing with matches. Anna did not keep follow-up appointments for treatment of his burns or for skin grafting. In October 2001 Anna left the children in the care of her brother, a known sexual offender, who abused them, resulting in a founded report of sexual abuse.
In October 2002 the children were found to be in need of assistance under Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2), (6)(d), and (6)(g) (2001). The court cited "the chronic inability, failure or refusal of the parents to provide appropriate care, supervision, shelter, necessities and safety for the children" among the reasons for the adjudication. In placing the children with their father, the court noted, "the mother had abandoned the children for approximately six months. The parents have generally been resourceless, dependent and have had difficulty providing for their own needs, let alone the needs of their children." Initially, the father and children lived with his parents, both of whom are serious alcoholics. In January 2003 the father reported his parents were attempting to throw them out of the house and he had no place to go with the children. Later that month the children's guardian ad litem (GAL) filed an application to modify the dispositional order and have the children placed in foster care. The GAL alleged the father had moved four times in three months living with relatives, had not been supervising the children adequately, had not maintained employment, had not followed through with a court-ordered substance abuse evaluation, and had not followed through with mental health services.
In March 2003 the court modified the dispositional order and placed the children in foster care. At the time of the termination hearing in April 2004, the children were in pre-adoptive foster care.
Both parents have substance abuse problems, but neither followed through with evaluation and treatment. Neither participated in mental health services such as seeing a therapist or taking medications as required. The parents missed twenty-four of forty possible visits with the children. They missed fifty percent of expected contacts with service providers. Anna started, but did not complete a batterer's education program. Anna was incarcerated for a time for failure to comply with conditions of her probation.
In March 2004 the Foster Care Review Board recommended termination of parental rights. The GAL requested that the county attorney file a petition to terminate parental rights. Following a hearing in April 2004, the juvenile court terminated both parents' rights. At the hearing, both parents and extended family members all testified there were no problems in parenting and the children could be returned to their parents' care safely. The court found:
Neither parent exhibits any real insight into their substance abuse problems and both parents indicated that their involvement in that programming has been as a consequence of it being required as opposed to any recognition of the problems themselves.
. . . Both have been inconsistent in their follow through with [mental health] services. The concerns identified in that regard in the case plans during the history of these proceedings remain unresolved.
. . . .
The testimony of their parents and their witnesses also raises concern for the Court. Neither parent, nor the extended family members who testified on their behalf, were able to acknowledge any problem in the parenting of the children that resulted in their removal from parental custody. The parents and their extended family members perceive the parents as victims.
The court terminated Anna's parental rights to Queyona under sections 232.116(1)(d) (2003) (circumstances leading to adjudication continue to exist despite services), and (h) (child three or younger, removed for six months, and cannot safely be returned to parental care); and her rights to Johnna under sections 232.116(1)(d) and (f) (child four or older, removed for twelve months, and cannot safely be returned to parental care). The court did not find clear and convincing evidence to support termination under sections 232.116(1)(b), (e), (i), or (k) as pled by the State.
From our review of the record, we find clear and convincing evidence the circumstances leading to the children's removal continue to exist despite the offer or receipt of services, both children have been out of Anna's care for more than the statutory period but cannot safely be returned to either parent's care. Therefore, termination is appropriate on the grounds cited by the court. The juvenile court's explicit findings concerning the testimony of the parents and their extended family members demonstrates it did not ignore the testimony, but did not find it credible. We conclude this argument is without merit. We affirm the termination of Anna's parental rights to Queyona and Johnna.
AFFIRMED.