Opinion
No. 2-754 / 02-1263
Filed October 16, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Jane Mylrea, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter and the continued placement of her other four children with the Department of Human Services. AFFIRMED.
Monica Ackley, Dubuque, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Jean Becker, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
John Nemmers of Reynolds Kenline, L.L.P., Dubuque, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Hecht, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Cheryl has five children: Thomas, born in 1990, Wylie, born in 1991, Alyssa, born in 1994, Ariel, born in 1997, and Madilyn, born in 2001. She appeals the termination of her parental rights to her youngest daughter and the permanency order that continued placement of her four older children in the custody of the Department of Human Services. On our de novo review, we find sufficient evidence to support both actions.
The parties do not challenge the fact that Cheryl has appealed the permanency order pursuant to our expedited rules. Therefore, we need not address this issue.
I. Madilyn
Cheryl contends the State failed to prove Madilyn could not be returned to her care. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(g) (2001). We disagree.
Subsection (g) is now codified at Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h).
Cheryl was involved with the Department even before Madilyn's birth. In mid-1991, the four older children were removed from the home after she tested positive for methamphetamine in her system. Cheryl initially cooperated with services and the children were returned.
Within months, Cheryl's compliance deteriorated. Shortly after Madilyn was born, a caseworker discovered that four-year-old Ariel was caring for the baby. The Department cited Cheryl for denial of critical care. Two months later, law enforcement officers found a methamphetamine laboratory in the basement of the home. Madilyn and the other children were placed in foster care.
Cheryl did not appear at the adjudicatory hearing. At a disposition modification hearing a month later, the juvenile court noted that Cheryl had not undergone inpatient substance abuse treatment as ordered by the juvenile court, had failed to follow through with counseling, and had missed visits with her young daughter.
Although Cheryl's compliance with Department directives improved just before the termination petition was filed, her efforts to correct the problems that led to the children's removal came too late. Just six weeks before the termination hearing, a caseworker stated:
Cheryl has just recently decided that she wants services. She has not been consistent with any of her appointments and has not met with service providers. Caseworker has been attempting to locate Cheryl for random UA's, but was not around when we stopped by the family home or other people would answer the door stating she was not there. The recommendation for Cheryl is to attend inpatient treatment. Cheryl continues to struggle with depression, low self-esteem, and male dependency. She is currently unemployed and living with a friend. Cheryl can have visitation when she shows full compliance.
By the time of the termination hearing, Cheryl had still not participated in inpatient substance abuse treatment and was continuing to live with a man that the Department deemed a bad influence. We agree with the juvenile court that there was clear and convincing evidence to support termination of her parental rights to Madilyn.
II. Older Children
The juvenile court determined that the four older children would remain in the care, custody, and control of the Department. Cheryl takes issue with this determination, arguing the substance abuse center that she considered attending would have accommodated one or more of the children. The juvenile court addressed this question in the context of another residential placement. The court stated:
the children's lives will not be disrupted by authorizing the child to be taken with her to Heart of Iowa; rather she will fully cooperate and complete a substance abuse program inpatient on her own and not disrupt the children at this time pending further aftercare and compliance from their mother.
Although Cheryl did comply with some services by the time of the termination hearing, we are not convinced that her belated efforts mandated a transfer of the four older children to her while she was undergoing treatment. The record reveals that Cheryl was not yet in a position to care for four children, even in a structured, supervised setting. Accordingly, we affirm the court's ruling as to these children. In light of our ruling, we find it unnecessary to address Cheryl's motion for expanded visitation with Madilyn.