Opinion
No. 2-708 / 02-1107
Filed September 25, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Timothy T. Jarman, District Associate Judge.
Mother and father appeal from the order terminating their parental rights to their children. AFFIRMED.
William Binkard, South Sioux City, Nebraska, for appellant-mother.
John S. Moeller of O'Brien, Galvin Moeller, Sioux City, for appellant-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, and Cindy Weber-Blair, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Michelle Dreibelbis of the Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
India P. appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her children Antonio F., born April 22, 1989, Ashley F., born October 8, 1990, Natasha P., born February 8, 1992, Asia P., born October 2, 1993, and Rita T., born May 4, 1995. Harold P., the father of Asia and Natasha, appeals from the termination of his parental rights to them. We affirm.
We review these termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). While the district court terminated the parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we will affirm if at least one ground has been proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
The court terminated India's and Harold's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (c), (d), and (k) (2001). On appeal, India argues the court erred in concluding (1) the State proved by clear and convincing evidence each of the statutory elements for termination, and (2) termination was in the children's best interests. Harold contends the court erred in concluding (1) he abandoned the children, (2) the State offered him services, but the circumstances which led to adjudication continued to exist, and (3) the children could not be returned to his care. He also maintains the Department of Human Services made it impossible for him to maintain significant and meaningful contact with the children since they were allowed to leave the State with their foster family.
Now codified at Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), and (l) (Supp. 2001).
Upon our de novo review of the record, we conclude the court properly terminated both India's and Harold's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(c). Termination under this section requires proof the court has previously adjudicated the children in need of assistance after finding they have been physically or sexually abused and the parents were offered services but the circumstances which led to adjudication continue to exist. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(c).
The children were removed from India's care and placed in the custody of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) on September 22, 2000, after she was arrested for stabbing Harold. By order on November 21, 2000, all five children were adjudicated in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b), (c)(2), and (n) (1999), after it was discovered Harold and India had left them at home unsupervised while they were drinking at a bar. The children did not know where their parents were, and Harold and India returned home in a highly intoxicated state. Following this adjudication, both India and Harold were offered numerous services to enable them to regain custody of the children. However, they largely refused them or otherwise failed to take full advantage of the efforts made by service providers.
Harold and India clearly have significant unaddressed substance abuse, violence, and criminal behavior problems. After the children were initially removed, they reported to DHS workers tales of domestic violence between Harold and India. Both Harold and India have been arrested on numerous occasions for assaultive behavior, and frequently the children witnessed such conduct. India was incarcerated at the time of the hearing on the termination petition. Drinking and drug usage appear commonplace in their lives, frequently taking positions of importance over the lives of the children.
India was offered, and either rejected or did not otherwise take advantage of, a variety of services, including supervised visitation, batterer's education classes, anger management classes, alcohol/substance abuse treatment, and couple's counseling. Harold also refused to attend or failed at a number of offered services, such as two different couple's counseling services, two separate outpatient treatments for his substance abuse, counseling with the children through Blue Stem Services, parental skill development training, and a psychological evaluation. Despite their failings at these services, neither Harold nor India requested additional services.
Nothing in the record indicates Harold or India took affirmative steps to prove they could regain custody of the children. Based on their past performance as parents, we agree with the trial court termination is in the best interests of the children. See In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 493-94 (Iowa 1990) (noting past performance may be indicative of quality of future care the parent is capable of providing). Harold and India have been given more than adequate time and opportunity to demonstrate they can develop the ability to be parents. We therefore affirm the order terminating their parental rights.