Opinion
No. 2-626 / 01-1838
Filed September 11, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Donna Paulsen, Judge.
Appeal from order terminating parent child relationship. AFFIRMED.
Tiffany Koenig and Christopher Kragnes, Sr., Des Moines, for appellant.
Ronald Baybayan, Des Moines, for father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, M. Elise Pippin, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Celene Coffman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Amy Kepes of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Harris, Snell, and Brown, Senior Judges.
Senior Judges assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2001).
A mother appeals termination of her relationship with her son. The father does not appeal. Termination was ordered pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (Supp. 2001). It provides for termination if:
(1) The child is three years of age or younger.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child's parents for at least six months of the last twelve months, or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child's parents as provided in section 232.102 at the present time.
The mother concedes the first three of these elements have been established, and limits her challenge to the fourth. She thinks the fourth was not established, contending the child would not suffer adjudicatory harm if returned to her care. Because the record is clearly against her, we affirm.
The situation is as hopelessly tragic for the mother as it is dangerous for the child. Substance addiction is so carefully documented that the mother must either concede existence or demonstrate an unwillingness to face up to the obvious. In resolving such cases, profound sympathy for a parent caught in such a tragedy must yield to the clear needs of the child.
When L.W., the child, was born July 17, 2000, he tested positive for marijuana. The mother, M.F., admitted using marijuana prior to her pregnancy and after L.W.'s birth, but indicated L.W. tested positive because she had unwittingly eaten brownies that someone laced with marijuana. L.W. was alleged to be a child in need of assistance, and at a pretrial conference, both parents were ordered to provide specimens for laboratory analysis. Both tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and marijuana, so the child was removed from his parents' care. M.F. five times tested positive for marijuana in the weeks that followed. She also again tested positive for amphetamine-methamphetamine. Like the trial court, we cannot accept her claim she once again unknowingly consumed the substance, this time in a soft drink laced by someone else.
For a time L.W. was returned to her care and M.F. stopped providing specimens for analysis. When L.W. was again taken from her care so that she was motivated to provide a specimen, it tested positive for cocaine. She denies knowing how this happened.
There is more to the record, including intoxication by both parents and domestic abuse by L.W.'s father. But we need not detail it, because the foregoing is enough. L.W. cannot safely be returned to his mother's custody. It would be irresponsible to conclude otherwise.
M.F. separately claims the State failed to show that termination is in L.W.'s best interests. We find termination is in his best interests. Having concluded L.W. would not be safe if returned to his mother's custody, it is impossible to imagine how it is in his best interests to retain a relationship with her. The mother shows no sign of even recognizing her tragic circumstances, much less facing up to them during L.W.'s childhood. In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Iowa 1987) ("crucial days of childhood cannot be suspended while parents experiment with ways to face up to their own problems"). Termination on this record was inevitable.
AFFIRMED.