Opinion
No. 2-609 / 02-0859.
Filed July 31, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, BRIAN L. MICHAELSON, Associate Juvenile Judge.
The mother appeals a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her three minor children. AFFIRMED.
Robert Sikma, Sioux City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas Mullin, County Attorney, and Marlene Loftus, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Michele Dreibelbis, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and MAHAN and ZIMMER, JJ.
The mother appeals a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her three minor children pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), and (f) (Supp. 2001). Michael, the father, also had his parental rights terminated but is not part of this appeal. We affirm.
In its order terminating parental rights, the court cites to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (c), (d), and (e). However, the applicable law in this termination is correctly cited as Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), and (f) (Supp. 2001) due to an amendment to section 232.116 that renumbered the sections but did not substantively alter them.
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). Our primary concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the child. Id. To support the termination of parental rights, the State must establish the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. Id.
Upon a careful review of the record, we find there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate Peggy's parental rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(f). Indeed, the evidence was overwhelming. The three boys in this case exhibit severe behavioral issues as a result of their exposure to significant levels of domestic violence in the family home involving their mother and father. In fact, Michael seriously assaulted Peggy and her nephew in 1998, which resulted in Michael being incarcerated. In addition, while residing with their mother in Texas, the children were exposed to negligent supervision and physical abuse while under their mother's care. At the time the petition for termination of parental rights was filed in December 2001, Peggy had not contacted the children for over sixteen months. Only at the time of the filing did she begin to make attempts to re-establish contact with her children. Peggy has also failed to comply with the responsibilities delineated to her in the case permanency plan. While she did complete chemical dependency treatment, she made no contact with the children's therapists or the in-home service provider, and she did not complete the domestic violence counseling. Therefore, she has made no significant progress in resolving the problems that initially caused the court to remove the children from her home. The amount of patience for the mother's actions must be reasonably limited because "patience with parents can soon translate into intolerable hardship for their children." In re A.Y.H., 508 N.W.2d 92, 96 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993). The record is clear Peggy loves her children but she has not proven she is able to effectively parent or keep her children safe while they are in her care. Consequently, the best interests of the children warrant the termination of the mother's parental rights.
Michael returned home and found the two having sex.
The children were returned to Iowa on June 14, 1999, because of previous protective concerns.
When a juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one ground, we need only find one ground exists to affirm. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). Having found termination appropriate under section 232.116(1)(f), we need not reach Peggy's argument the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights under the other Code sections.
AFFIRMED.