Opinion
No. 2-849 / 02-1396
Filed October 16, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan Flaherty, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
David Nadler of Johnston Nathanson, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, and Lance Heeren, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Pamela Lewis, Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for the minor child.
Considered by Hecht, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(h) and (l) (Supp. 2001). She contends the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the grounds for termination, her parental rights should not have been terminated because of her bond with the children, the DHS failed to make reasonable efforts for reunification, and termination was not in the children's best interest. We review these claims de novo. In re R.R., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991).
In its order terminating parental rights, the court cites to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(g) and (k) (2001). However, the applicable law in this termination is correctly cited as Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(h) and (l) (Supp. 2001) due to an amendment to section 232.116 that reordered the sections but did not substantively alter them.
While the district court terminated parental rights on more than one ground, we need only find one ground to affirm. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). In order to terminate parental rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(g), the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the children are three years old or younger, the children were adjudicated in need of assistance, they have been removed from the home for at least six of the last twelve months, and they cannot be returned home. The mother does not dispute the State has met its burden in proving the first three elements, but contends the children could have been returned home at the time of termination. We disagree.
The mother has had a lengthy battle with substance abuse. Although she had been drug free for six months at the time of termination, the mother's history illustrates her inability to remain sober. The longest period of sobriety the thirty-three year old mother has maintained since she was a teenager is one year. The mother's future actions can be predicted by her past behavior. See In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Iowa 2000). We concur with the district court's assessment that only a significant amount of time would demonstrate her sobriety. However, children should not be forced to endlessly await the maturity of a natural parent. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000). While the law requires a "full measure of patience with troubled parents who attempt to remedy a lack of parenting skills," this patience has been built into the statutory scheme of chapter 232. Id. Because the statutory time has expired and the children cannot be returned to mother's custody, we find termination is warranted.
The mother next contends the DHS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with her children. A challenge to the sufficiency of services should be raised in the course of the child in need of assistance proceedings. In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). The mother attended hearings in the child in need of assistance case and never requested additional services to reunite her with her children. In fact, she failed to participate fully in the services offered to her.
Finally, the mother contends termination was improper because of her close relationship with the children. She argues that termination is not in the children's best interest. However, the mother has a history of neglecting her children while engaged in drug use. She is unable to demonstrate that she will remain sober in the future. The only way to ensure the children's future safety is to place them in long term foster care while the mother proves herself. This is not in the children's best interest. See In re E.K., 568 N.W.2d 829, 831 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997) ("A child should not be forced to endlessly suffer the parentless limbo of foster care.") These twins are three years old now and have been in foster care for almost half their lifetime. At some point, the rights and needs of the child rise above the rights and needs of the parent. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). We find termination is in the best interest of the children.