Opinion
No. 2-747 / 02-1226
Filed September 25, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Brian L. Michaelson, Associate Juvenile Judge.
Mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her daughter. AFFIRMED.
William L. Binkard, South Sioux City, Nebraska, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, and Dewey Sloan, Sr., Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Brian Vakulskas of Vakulskas Law Firm, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Hecht, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Sheila is the mother of Kailee G., born October 15, 1995. At the age of five months, Kailee began living with her father, Jeremiah, whom Sheila had never married. In 1999, the district court granted Jeremiah custody of Kailee. On April 25, 2000, Kailee was removed from Jeremiah's care after he was arrested and on April 27 of that year, the State filed a child in need of assistance (CINA) petition regarding Kailee. The juvenile court subsequently adjudicated her in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b), (c)(2), and (n) (2001).
On May 14, 2002, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate Sheila's parental rights. Following a hearing, the court granted the petition and terminated her parental rights under sections 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), and (f) (Supp. 2001).
The court also terminated Jeremiah's parental rights. He does not appeal from this order.
We review 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). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child . In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
We conclude the court properly terminated Sheila's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(e), which requires clear and convincing evidence that (1) the child has been adjudicated CINA, (2) the child has been removed from her parent's custody for a period of at least six consecutive months, and (3) the parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child during the previous six months and has made no reasonable efforts to resume care of the child. Iowa Code§ 232.116(1)(e).
It is undisputed Kailee has been adjudicated CINA and has been removed from Sheila's custody for the past six months. The record shows that after Kailee was removed, Sheila participated in some visitations with Kailee. However, by the time of the hearing on the termination petition on July 19, 2002, Sheila admitted she had not seen, talked to, or written to Kailee since April or May of 2001. Sheila failed to return phone calls from either the Department of Human Services or Kailee's foster parents during extended periods and failed to request visits. The explanations she offered for her apparent lack of parental interest were her depression over her brother's murder, her father's attempted suicide, difficulty in receiving mail, and lack of a phone. However, we are not persuaded that these reasons are sufficient. Moreover, there is no evidence Sheila provided Kailee any financial support during this period. We conclude Sheila has not maintained significant and meaningful contact with Kailee and has made no reasonable efforts to resume her care. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e). Sheila's claims at trial of desiring and being able to resume care of Kailee are inconsistent with the history of parental behavior in this case.
Furthermore, based on Sheila's apparent lack of interest in resuming care of Kailee, we conclude termination is in the best interest of Kailee. Sheila claims she loves Kailee, wants her returned, and will take additional parenting classes in the future to ensure a safe home upon Kailee's return. This is simply not enough. Kailee should not be forced to suffer in the limbo of parentless foster care. In re D.J.R., 454 N.W.2d 838, 845 (Iowa 1990). Sheila's inability or unwillingness to parent adequately has been established by clear and convincing evidence.