Opinion
No. 2-713 / 02-1190
Filed September 11, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John G. Mullen, Associate Juvenile Judge.
Mother appeals an order terminating her parental rights to a two-year-old child. AFFIRMED.
Benjamin A. Yeggy of Gomez, May, Cartee Schutte, Davenport, for appellant.
Patricia Zamora of Zamora, Taylor, Clark, Alexander Woods, Davenport, for father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Katherine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Gerda Lane, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Marsha Arnold, Davenport, for minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
Jessica appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter, K.M., born January 12, 2000, pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) (child adjudicated child in need of assistance (CINA), removed for at least six months, parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child), and (g) (child is three or younger, adjudicated CINA, removed from home for six of last twelve months, and cannot be returned home) (2001). Jessica contends the juvenile court erred in finding that the last element of each of these two statutory provisions has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm.
These provisions have been redesignated as Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(e) and (h) (Supp. 2001) respectively.
We review termination proceedings de novo. Although we are not bound by them, we give weight to the trial court's findings of fact, especially when considering credibility of witnesses. . . . To support the termination of parental rights, the State must establish the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116 by clear and convincing evidence.
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (citations omitted).
The juvenile court made detailed findings of fact, well supported by the evidence. The particularly pertinent findings, with which we fully agree, together with limited additional facts shown by the record, follow.
K.M. was removed and placed in foster care in April 2001, and has thereafter remained in foster care. She was adjudicated a CINA on multiple grounds, including Jessica's neglect, Jessica's failure to supervise, Jessica's failure to provide adequate shelter, and Jessica's drug abuse resulting in inadequate care. The adjudication was the result of Jessica leaving K.M. with an inappropriate caretaker for an extended time and not returning when she was supposed to. At that time Jessica was living a transient, unstable lifestyle, and was actively engaged in substance abuse. She had previously been involved in juvenile court proceedings for the same issues with two other children and services had been provided since at least March 1999. Because Jessica did well enough with services, those two children had been returned to her in May 2000, but after a short time she was again unstable and not providing appropriately for them. Later in 2000 Jessica stopped accepting services when an investigation of her lack of supervision of the two children occurred. Jessica gave custody of the two children to their father in order to avoid further involvement with the juvenile court. As that placement was appropriate, the juvenile court proceeding involving the two children was dismissed.
In early April 2001 the incident occurred that led to K.M.'s CINA adjudication. In April 2001 Jessica was also involved in an incident that resulted in her arrest and prosecution on criminal charges. The incident led to her conviction and resulted in her being required to live in a residential correctional facility from about October 2001 to January 2002. Jessica did relatively well while under close supervision and in a highly structured environment, cooperated with the case plan that had been adopted in this case, and had regular visitation with K.M. until November 2001. By then K.M. had been showing serious emotional distress following visits and the visits were limited for a time and then ended to see if K.M.'s behavior improved. It did.
When visits were ended Jessica stopped participating in services. When she was released from the residential correctional facility in January 2002 she moved to a different county, thereafter had no meaningful contact with the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS), and did not participate in services. Her limited contacts involved displays of anger. Anger had been and continues to be a problem for Jessica, one she has not attempted to deal with and for which she has refused offered services.
The juvenile court aptly observed:
[Jessica] has been successful for a time in maintaining stability, sobriety and a responsible lifestyle. The issue, however, is sustainability. Over the past four years the mother has not been able to sustain a stable, sober lifestyle for an extended period of time. Considering the mother's evidence in the best light, she has been able to maintain stability and sobriety on her own for approximately six months. The issue is whether she will continue with this lifestyle or she will revert back to old patterns. Since [K.M.] is two years old and has already been out of the home fifteen months of her life, the Court concludes that [K.M.] can't afford to wait and see whether or not her mother is able to maintain this sober, responsible lifestyle. Considering the mother's stability is short-term, the Court concludes that [K.M.] cannot be returned safely to her custody at the present time.
Under the fourth element of section 232.116(1)(g) a child cannot be returned to a parent at the present time when it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned because the child remains a child in need of assistance on any of the grounds listed in section 232.2(6). In re A.M.S., 419 N.W.2d 723, 725 (Iowa 1988); In re R.R.K., 554 N.W.2d 274, 277 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). In this connection the juvenile court stated:
It is unknown when and if [K.M.] could be returned safely home. If placed in mother's custody, the Court concludes that [K.M.] would be subjected to a high risk of adjudicatory harm in the nature of physical abuse, emotional abuse and neglect, and failure of supervision. Since the mother has refused or failed to participate in services over the past seven to eight months, it is not likely that additional services would make any difference to the mother nor promote reunification.
We fully agree with the juvenile court. We find clear and convincing evidence that K.M. cannot be returned home at the present time and affirm the juvenile court's termination of Jessica's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(g). We need not address whether termination was also appropriate under section 232.116(1)(d). See In re A.J., 553 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996) (holding that where the district court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we only need to find grounds to terminate under one of the statutory provisions in order to affirm).
AFFIRMED.