Opinion
No. 4-790 / 04-1523
Filed December 8, 2004
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Alan D. Allbee, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her daughter. AFFIRMED.
Michael Treinen of Dunakey Klatt, P.C., Waterloo, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Steven Halbach, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Linnea Nichol, Waterloo, for child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Tina B. is the mother of Tiana H., who was born on March 3, 2003. Tiana was removed from her mother's custody on March 5, 2003, while Tiana was still in the hospital due to concerns about Tina's history of mental illness, the previous termination of her parental rights to four other children, and her perceived inability to appropriately care for an infant. Further, after being informed Tiana had an infection and would require continued hospitalization, Tina was discovered peering into other babies' rooms wearing hospital scrubs. Hospital personnel were concerned because Tina had commented that if she could not take her baby home, she would take another child. On June 13, 2003, Tiana was adjudicated to be in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2003). See In re T.H., No. 03-1415 (Iowa Ct.App. Feb. 11, 2004) (unpublished opinion affirming Tiana's CINA adjudication). On March 17, 2004, the State petitioned the juvenile court to terminate Tina's parental right to Tiana. Following a hearing, the court terminated her rights under sections 232.116(1)(g) and (h). Tina appeals from this order.
Paternity of the child has not been established.
We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). Our primary concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the child. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). 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).
On appeal, Tina maintains (1) the evidence does not establish that she lacked the ability to respond to services, (2) the court improperly determined that returning Tiana to her care would subject Tiana to adjudicatory harm, and (3) termination is not in Tiana's best interests.
On our de novo review of the record, we conclude the juvenile court properly terminated Tina's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h), which requires proof that the child is three or younger, has been adjudicated CINA, has been removed for six months, and cannot be returned to the parent's custody. Tina's severe and chronic mental health issues continue to be an impediment to reunification. As we previously found in Tina's appeal from Tiana's CINA adjudication, "Tina has a history of mental health problems, reflected in an early diagnosis of schizophrenia, paranoid type, more recently diagnosed as schizoaffective disorder. She also has a history of noncompliance with treatment and family reunification services." Although she has made some progress through medication, even fairly recently Tina was still refusing to admit she suffered from a mental illness. It is quite apparent Tina is in need of continuing mental health treatment.
Both of Tina's in-home service providers opined that Tiana could not be returned to her care. They found her parenting skills to be lacking in good judgment. When providers offered to extend visitations from three hours to eight, Tina declined, commenting they would be too long and boring. If Tina cannot accept the responsibility of supervising her child for more than three hours at a time, it would be folly to return Tiana to her care on a fulltime basis.
Tina also contends that termination of her parental rights is not in the child's best interest. Even if the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights are met, the decision to terminate must still be in the best interests of the child. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). In considering whether a parent can safely care for a child in the future, we look to the parent's past performance and motivations. See In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Iowa 2000). As noted, Tina has had her parental rights to four other children terminated in two separate actions. At the time of the termination order, because of her chronic mental health problems, Tina had not progressed to the point of being able to have unsupervised visits with Tiana. Clear and convincing evidence established that Tina could not, within a reasonable timeframe, assume Tiana's care and custody. We therefore conclude termination is in Tiana's best interests and affirm the termination order.