Opinion
No. 2-642 / 02-0982.
Filed August 14, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, JOHN G. MULLEN, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
William Creasey of Goedken Creasey, Muscatine, for appellant.
Esther Dean, Muscatine, for father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Ann Marie Brick, Assistant Attorney General, and Korie L. Shippee, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Neva Rettig-Baker, Muscatine, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and MAHAN and ZIMMER, JJ.
Cherrish, mother of Nadaline, appeals the termination of her parental rights. We affirm the juvenile court's decision.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings .
Nadaline, born July 14, 2000, is the daughter of Cherrish and Gary. Nadaline came to the attention of the juvenile court after the Department of Human Services (Department) confirmed a child abuse report. The court adjudicated Nadaline a child in need of assistance (CINA) on October 15, 2001. The adjudication was based on the parents' inability or failure to provide appropriate care, supervision, and a stable and safe home for their child due to their substance abuse and chaotic lifestyle. Nadaline has been out of her mother's custody since October 11, 2001. She initially resided with Cherrish's sister and was later placed in foster care.
In November of 2001, the court held a dispositional hearing and found Cherrish had progressed minimally towards rectifying the adjudicatory harms. In March of 2002, the Department requested that the State petition for termination of parental rights due to continuing parental shortcomings. At that time, Nadaline had been out of her mother's care for five months and Cherrish was not complying with substance abuse treatment. On April 18, 2002, the State filed its petition seeking termination. The parental rights of Cherrish and Gary were terminated on May 30, 2002 pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) (2001) (child CINA, child removed from parent for six consecutive months, and parents have not maintained significant and meaningful contact), (1)(g) (child three or younger, child CINA, child removed from parent for six of last twelve months or last six consecutive months, and child cannot be returned), and (1)(k) (child CINA and custody transferred, parent has severe substance abuse problem, and child cannot be returned within a reasonable time). Cherrish appeals.
Subsections (d), (g), and (k) have since been redesignated (e), (h), and (l), respectively, due to amendment to Chapter 232.
II. Scope of Review .
The standard of review in termination cases is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; In re J.J.S., 628 N.W.2d 25, 28 (Iowa Ct.App. 2001).
III. Discussion .
Cherrish raises a variety of issues on appeal. She contends the Department failed to make reasonable reunification efforts. In addition, she claims error as to each statutory ground found by the juvenile court. Appellant further asserts that termination was not in Nadaline's best interests. Finally, Cherrish argues the current rules for termination appeals violate her due process rights.
A. Reasonable Efforts .
This issue was not properly preserved. The reasonableness of reunification efforts is not the focus of termination hearings. In re B.K.K., 500 N.W.2d 54, 57 (Iowa 1993). A challenge to services should be made when the case plan is entered, not when the termination is sought. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997) (citation omitted). A parent's challenge to services should be made when they are offered not when termination of parental rights is sought after services have failed to remedy a parent's deficiencies. In re C.W., 522 N.W.2d 113, 117 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). No evidence appears in the record that Cherrish challenged the services at the appropriate times. On April 26, 2002, Cherrish directed her attorney to make a written request for services after the petition to terminate was filed on April 18, 2002. Accordingly, this issue was not preserved. Even if this issue was properly before us, we would reject this assignment of error. The record reveals the mother was offered family preservation services and substance abuse evaluation and treatment. She did not begin to cooperate with the services offered until two weeks prior to the termination hearing. We conclude that reasonable efforts were made to reunify Nadaline with her mother.
B. Statutory Grounds .
Although appellant claims error as to each statutory ground found by the juvenile court, we need only find grounds to terminate under one of the sections cited by the juvenile court to affirm. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999) (citation omitted).
Upon our de novo review of the record, we determine the mother's rights were properly terminated under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d). Section 232.116(1)(d) requires that: (1) the child has been adjudicated CINA, (2) the child has been removed from the custody of the parents for at least six consecutive months, and (3) the parents have failed to maintain significant and meaningful contact with the child during the previous six months and have made no reasonable efforts to resume care of the child despite being given the opportunity to do so.
"[S]ignificant and meaningful contact" includes but is not limited to the affirmative assumption by the parents of the duties encompassed by the role of being a parent. This affirmative duty, in addition to financial obligations, requires continued interest in the child, a genuine effort to complete the responsibilities prescribed in the case permanency plan, a genuine effort to maintain communication with the child, and requires that parents establish and maintain a place of importance in the child's life.
Clear and convincing evidence establishes each of the preceding elements. The juvenile court adjudicated Nadaline CINA on October 15, 2001. At the time of the termination hearing, she had been out of the mother's care for over seven months. See In re J.L.H., 326 N.W.2d 284, 286 (Iowa 1982) (holding the time limitations commence when the child is removed and continue until the date of the termination hearing). The only remaining issue is whether Cherrish maintained significant and meaningful contact. The record reveals she maintained very little, if any, meaningful contact with Nadaline. Cherrish last visited Nadaline in November of 2001. She made no attempts to contact her child after December 2001 except for a contact just prior to the termination hearing. Despite receiving the opportunity for visitation, substance abuse treatment, and family-centered services, Cherrish failed to make reasonable efforts towards resuming care of Nadaline. Instead, Nadaline's mother continued to struggle with instability and drug addiction. We affirm the court's termination pursuant to section 232.116(1)(d). Although we need not discuss them, we also find clear and convincing evidence supports termination of Cherrish's parental rights on the other grounds found by the juvenile court.
C. Best Interests .
Even if the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights are met, the decision to terminate must be in a child's best interests. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). Cherrish maintains termination is not in Nadaline's best interests. We disagree. Cherrish has had a severe and chronic drug problem involving crystal methamphetamine. The problem is so severe that her addiction must be gratified by injection. Although Cherrish has received substantial treatment, she has yet to complete a program or demonstrate progress towards providing a safe, healthy, wholesome, and stable environment. We agree with the juvenile court that if returned to Cherrish, Nadaline would be at a high risk of further adjudicatory harm. Sadly, termination of Cherrish's parental rights is, in fact, in the best long-term interests of Nadaline.
D. Due Process .
Appellant's final contention lacks merit. We have recently rejected this argument. See In re R.K., No. 2-341/02-0359 (Iowa Ct. App. May 31, 2002). The challenged rules provide equal and open access to the appellate courts and an opportunity to raise issues for appellate review. In sum, the rules sufficiently safeguard a parent's constitutional due process rights.
AFFIRMED.