No. 4-645 / 04-1288Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed October 27, 2004
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William S. Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. AFFIRMED.
Matthew Cunningham, of Walter Law Office, Ottumwa, attorney for appellant-Mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Mark Tremmel, County Attorney, and Rose Anne Mefford, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Jeffrey Logan, guardian ad litem for the minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Hecht, and Eisenhauer, JJ.
EISENHAUER, J.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. She contends the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite her with her child, the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, and termination is not in the child’s best interest. We review her claims de novo. In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002).
The mother first contends the State failed to provide reasonable efforts to reunite her with her child. Reasonable efforts to reunite parent and child are required prior to the termination of parental rights. In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343, 345
(Iowa Ct.App. 1996). We disagree with the mother’s contention the State failed to make reasonable efforts. Extensive services have been offered to the mother since 1999.
The mother next contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. The mother’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (e), and (f) (2003). We need only find termination proper under one ground to affirm. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). Termination is appropriate under section 232.116(1)(f) 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.
The mother does not dispute the first three elements have been met, but contends the State has failed to prove the child cannot be returned to her care.
We conclude clear and convincing evidence demonstrated the child cannot safely be returned to the mother’s care. The mother has shown a pattern of making short-term improvement before returning to her chaotic lifestyle. We conclude the mother is unable to provide the stability needed by this child.
A child in need of assistance petition was filed in March 2000 when the child was just six months old. At the time the mother was also under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court as a child in need of assistance. The child was removed from the mother’s care in October 2000 following a physical altercation between the mother and the mother’s foster parent. The parties stipulated to the child being in need of assistance.
Although the mother initially improved her parenting skills, she continued to have problems with anger management. In July 2001, the juvenile court found the mother had demonstrated an increasingly unstable lifestyle and had failed to progress toward reunification. By October 2001, the mother expressed a renewed desire to participate in services. In December 2001, she was allowed an extended visit, and in March 2002, the child was returned to her care.
In the month following the child’s return to the mother, the Department of Human Services became concerned about the mother’s use of a convicted felon as a care provider for the child. The mother also failed to keep appointments with her in-home provider. On April 2002, the child was again removed from the mother’s care. One week later, the mother abducted the child from his foster home. Their whereabouts were unknown until October 2003, when the mother was located in Kentucky. The child was returned to the State and placed in foster care. The mother was found in contempt and sentenced to forty days in jail.
Upon being returned to Iowa, the child was found to have significant delays in language and speech, as well as delays in daily living skills and socialization. These delays were not present when the child was removed from Iowa.
In March 2004, the mother assaulted her in-home provider with pepper spray and again absconded with the child. When the mother was located in a shelter in Kentucky, she again ran with the child upon realizing she was about to be apprehended. The mother and child were eventually discovered living in an abandoned building. The child was returned to Iowa and the mother was convicted of second-degree theft and violation of a custodial order. She was sentenced to two five-year sentences to be served concurrently. She is in prison now.
It is apparent from the history of this case that the mother is unable to care for her child. We likewise conclude termination is in the child’s best interest. The crucial days of childhood cannot be suspended while the mother experiments with ways to face up to her own problems. See In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Iowa 1997). The child simply cannot wait for responsible parenting. Id. Nor can parenting be turned off and on like a spigot. Id. It must be constant, responsible, and reliable Id. This mother has shown she is unable to provide responsible parenting. The child needs permanency. Accordingly, we affirm the order terminating the mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.