Opinion
No. 3-771 / 03-1417
Filed October 15, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William A. Price, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to four children. AFFIRMED.
Trinity M. Braun, Des Moines, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jon E. Anderson, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Philip Reser, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
Pauline is the mother of Matthew (referred to as "Mathew" at places in the record), born in November 1995, Nathen (referred to as "Nathan" at places in the record), born in February 1999, Megan, born in April 2000, and Nicole, born in November 2001. She appeals from an August 7, 2003 juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to all four children pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) and (e) (2003), to Matthew and Nathen pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f), and to Megan and Nicole pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h). We affirm.
Pauline's petition on appeal indicates Megan died on August 8, 2003.
The juvenile court also terminated the parental rights of the four children's three fathers, but they do not appeal.
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. The primary interest in termination proceedings is the best interests of the child. 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).
Child in need of assistance (CINA) petitions were filed on behalf of the four children in March 2002. Pauline and the children were living with Pauline's mother, who was ill, in her apartment. Pauline was on intensive probation for assaulting her mother. Pauline was suffering from anxiety and stress in attempting to care for her children. She had received numerous services in the past, but was not willing to cooperate with in-home services. Matthew, who was almost six and one-half years of age, was not enrolled in or attending school and was not receiving needed services for a speech disability.
On or about April 17, 2002, the children were removed from Pauline's care because she was not complying with court-ordered services; she was failing to supervise the children, usually sleeping until ten o'clock in the morning; and she was not providing proper care for the children, including allowing Matthew to parent his younger siblings, failing to administer prescribed medication, and allowing the children access to medications. The children have thereafter remained in the custody of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) and in foster care placement.
The State initiated in-home services to provide Pauline with parenting skills and therapy, and to provide visitation. Pauline was resistant and uncooperative. The children were adjudicated CINA on May 14, 2002. As a result of a May psychological examination Pauline was diagnosed as having Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Mixed Personality Disorder with Obsessive-Compulsive Traits, Paranoid Features, Avoidant Features, and Organic Personality Disorder. It was recommended that she attend parenting classes and increase her parenting skills and knowledge within three months, and that she become involved in individual therapy.
Because of Pauline's lack of cooperation, the DHS had to request and secure a court order to allow it to sign paperwork necessary for therapy for the children. Pauline was inconsistent in attending parenting classes and failed to complete them. She was unable or unwilling to maintain stable employment. She was inappropriate with her children's foster parents, and with her children concerning the foster parents. Although Matthew had been sexually abused by a male friend of Pauline's in whose care she had left him, Pauline allowed a registered sex offender to reside with her. She argued she needed housing to have her children returned, and needed his financial assistance to maintain housing. Despite an earlier conviction for driving without a license, she continued to do so, in a vehicle that was also unlicensed and was uninsured.
In March 2003 Pauline's home was unsafe for children. Pauline's mother, who paid rent and utilities for Pauline, was hospitalized and perhaps going to need to live in a facility that provided living assistance. Pauline was not able to pay her own bills with the income from the part-time job she then briefly held.
The State filed a termination petition in April 2003, and the juvenile court held a termination hearing in June. Pauline by then had another, relatively new, part-time job. She was living in her mother's apartment alone, as her mother was by then in an assisted living facility. Following the hearing the juvenile court entered an order on August 7, 2003, terminating Pauline's parental rights.
Pauline asserts on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to support termination on any of the four separate grounds upon which the juvenile court relied. The State concedes the juvenile court erred in terminating Pauline's parental rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(e), because the termination petition did not plead that Code section as to Pauline. We agree. However, we only need to find grounds to terminate under one of the statutory provisions relied on by the juvenile court in order to affirm. In re A.J., 553 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996).
The first three elements of sections 232.116(1)(f) and (1)(h) (age, CINA adjudication, period of removal) are not really in dispute. It is the juvenile court's finding concerning the fourth element of each, that the children could not be returned to her custody at the time of the termination hearing, which Pauline apparently disputes.
We find clear and convincing evidence supports termination of Pauline's parental rights under sections 232.116(1)(f) and (1)(h). Pauline was offered services for some fifteen months. Despite being relieved of responsibility to care and provide for her children during that time she did not to a reasonable extent take advantage of services or make significant progress until after the termination petition was filed about two months before the termination hearing. As of the termination hearing she had not achieved employment stability. She had held two part-time jobs briefly, and then recently started a third. She had not acquired stable housing. She lived in the apartment her mother had rented, but her mother had paid the rent and utilities, was now in an assisted living facility, and needed all of her resources for that facility.
Pauline had become overwhelmed and unable to meet her responsibility to care and provide for her four children, resulting in their removal. She nevertheless became pregnant during the CINA proceeding and was expecting another child about October 15, 2003. She did not know which of two men might be the father.
Pauline still had no driver's license, but continued to drive an unlicensed, uninsured vehicle. She had recently been arrested for fraudulent registration, interference with official acts, and operating a motor vehicle with her license under suspension.
As of the termination hearing Pauline had no support system of family, friends, or a father or fathers of her four children and soon to arrive fifth child.
Pauline's therapist did not believe Pauline was able to have her children returned, opining it would "be very challenging for Pauline to parent" the four children, and it would "be extremely difficult for her to parent four children and a fifth child coming." Matthew and Nathen's therapist believed that Pauline would be, as she earlier had been, overwhelmed with four children, her pregnancy, a lack of resources, and a lack of support from others, and that she was not ready to take the children back despite some recent progress. Shortly before the termination petition was filed Pauline had herself agreed she was not then ready to have the children returned.
The evidence shows that Pauline loves her children, has a substantial bond with them, and had recently at long last made limited progress toward meeting some of the requirements of the case permanency plan. However, her efforts were too little and too late. Clear and convincing evidence shows that the children could not be returned to her care without being subject to adjudicatory harm in the form of a failure to exercise a reasonable degree of care in their supervision. Pauline continued to be barely able to provide for herself and meet her own needs, much less meet the needs of four small children and soon a fifth.