Opinion
No. 2-753 / 02-1153
Filed October 16, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Linda R. Reade, Judge.
Mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her daughter. AFFIRMED.
David Pargulski, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Celene Coffman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Jason Hauser, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Hecht, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Robin B. is the mother of Makila V., born in January of 1997. On May 7, 2001, Makila was removed from her mother's care after Department of Human Services officials discovered the family's apartment to be unsuitable for living and suspected Robin of drug use. As a result of these discoveries, the State filed a petition alleging Makila to be a child in need of assistance (CINA). Following a hearing, the court adjudicated Makila CINA pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n) (2001). On March 13, 2002, the State filed a petition to terminate Robin's parental rights under sections 232.116(1)(e) and (f) (Supp. 2001). The court subsequently granted the petition and terminated Robin's parental rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(f). Robin appeals.
Neither the juvenile court nor Robin's appellate counsel are certain of Makila's date of birth. It is either January 12, 1997, or January 26, 1997.
Formerly codified at Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) and (e) (2001).
We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). Our primary concern in a termination proceeding is the best interests of the child. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 275 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995).
We conclude the court properly terminated Robin's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f), which requires clear and convincing evidence that (1) the child is four years of age or older, (2) the child has been adjudicated CINA, (3) the child has been removed for the last twelve consecutive months, and (4) the child cannot be returned to the custody of Robin. Robin contends she is making progress toward the goal of becoming a suitable custodian, and the State should allow her additional time until she can resume care of Makila.
We conclude Robin has been afforded a full measure of patience, yet has failed to make progress to the extent necessary to warrant returning Makila to her care. The General Assembly made a societal judgment that, at a given point, the tragic circumstances of parents must yield to the crying needs of their children. In re M.L.O., 477 N.W.2d 393, 394 (Iowa 1991).
Robin has a serious, long-standing history of substance abuse. As early as the age of fifteen, Robin was using methamphetamine. In 1997, officials in Oregon, where Robin and Makila were then living, intervened due to Robin's use of illegal substances. The drug use apparently continued once the family returned to Iowa. Although receptive to some services, Robin was inconsistent in her treatment for substance abuse.
The evidence illustrates that, beyond even the obvious concerns regarding her illicit drug use, there are numerous additional indicators of instability in Robin's life. Her employment history is spotty and her living conditions were consistently substandard and adverse to the well-being of Makila. Moreover, Robin suffers from mental health problems. Two social workers testified that based on their observation of Robin, they saw no reasonable probability Makila could safely be returned to her care. Finally, Robin is now married to an individual with a history of mental health problems, criminal involvement, and illegal drug use. Thus, we find clear and convincing evidence that Makila cannot safely be returned to her mother's custody and termination is in her best interest.