Opinion
No. 3-463 / 03-0845
Filed July 10, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Gary K. Anderson, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children. AFFIRMED.
Scott D. Strait, Shanks Law Firm, Council Bluffs, for appellant mother.
William McGinn, Council Bluffs, for father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Wilber, County Attorney, and J. Joseph Narmi, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Troyce Wheeler, Council Bluffs, for minor children.
Considered by Zimmer, P. J., and Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children. She contends the district court erred in failing to make a finding in regard to the best interest of the children. She also contends the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the grounds for termination, that termination is in the best interest of the children, and that reasonable efforts were made towards reunification. We review her claims de novo. In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002).
The juvenile court terminated the mother's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2003). Termination under section 232.116(1)(f) is proper where:
(1) The child is four years of age or older.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child's parents for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, or for the last twelve consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that at the present time the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child's parents as provided in section 232.102.
There is no dispute the first three elements have been met. We then consider whether the children could have been returned to their mother's custody at the time of termination.
At the time of termination, the mother was living with friends. She testified she has great difficulty obtaining her own housing. Although she previously rented a three-bedroom apartment, she could only afford it for a short period of time, as she has great financial debt. The mother testified at the termination hearing that she would need additional time to provide a home for her children. 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. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000). Children should not be forced to endlessly await the maturity of a natural parent. Id. 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). Clear and convincing evidence supports termination under section 232.116(1)(f).
The mother next contends the district court failed to make a finding regarding the best interest of the children. We conclude such a finding is implicit in the termination order. On de novo review, we also conclude termination is in the best interest of the children. The children were adjudicated in need of assistance after the mother's husband sexually abused both girls. The mother has a history of becoming romantically involved with child sex offenders. The mother denied her husband had abused her children, accused the children of lying, and blamed them for her financial circumstances after a protective order forced her husband out of the home. She continued to see her husband, carpooling with him to work and living with him after being evicted from her trailer. They remain married. The mother also failed to obtain a sex offender risk assessment as requested.
As a result of the sexual abuse, the children have exhibited behavioral and mental health problems. The children's behavior has improved since removal from their mother's care, with the older child in foster care and the younger child most recently in a residential treatment facility. Although the children expressed sadness at being separated from their mother, they recognized that they might not be able to live with their mother because she could not provide for their physical or emotional needs. The children's therapist reported the children need permanency and the CASA worker recommended termination.
Finally, the mother contends the Department of Human Services did not provide reasonable efforts toward reunification. 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 testified at the termination hearing that she never requested assistance in procuring state assistance, financial counseling, or vocational counseling from anyone at the Department of Human Services. She further testified that she could not think of any other services that were needed to place her in a position to care for her children. Because the mother failed to request any services at the time they were being offered, this issue has not been preserved for our review.