IN INTEREST OF A.B., 03-1148 (Iowa App. 9-10-2003)

No. 3-665 / 03-1148Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed September 10, 2003

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (South) County, G.R. Noneman, District Associate Judge.

L.L. and D.L. appeal the termination of their parental rights to their minor children. AFFIRMED.

Kendra Abfalter, Assistant Public Defender, Keokuk, for appellant mother.

Thomas Marion of Norman Marion, Keokuk, for appellant father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Short, County Attorney, and David Andrusyk, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.

Clinton Boddicker of Smith, Kultala Boddicker, L.L.P., Keokuk, guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.

HUITINK, P.J.

I. Background Facts Proceedings

Lesa and Dennis are the parents of Jayna, born in February 1994; Nora, born in November 1995; George, born in November 1996; and Richard, born in February 1999. Lesa is also the mother of Ashlee, born in April 1989. The children were removed from the parents’ care in February 2001 based on instability in the home caused by the parents’ drug use. Ashlee, Jayna, and Nora were placed with the maternal grandparents. George and Richard were placed in foster care. The children were adjudicated to be children in need of assistance (CINA).

The parents have several problems. They have a history of using methamphetamine. The parents were generally not cooperative with services. They had an unstable relationship, separating and reuniting several times. The parents were unable to obtain suitable housing for the children. They were warned that continued drug use would cause a cessation of visitation. After positive drug tests in October 2002, the parents received no further visitation.

The State filed a petition to terminate the parents’ rights. The juvenile court terminated the parents’ rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2003). The juvenile court found, “[d]ue to parental drug usage, inadequate housing, marital instability, and lack of meaningful cooperation with services the children have never been able to be returned to the parents’ home.” Lesa appeals.[1]
II. Standard of Review

The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000).

III. Reasonable Efforts

Lesa claims the State did not engage in reasonable efforts to reunite her with her children. In particular, she claims she should have continued to receive visitation. Reasonable services must be provided to attempt to reunite a family before the State can terminate parental rights. In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). The reasonable efforts concept would broadly include a visitation arrangement designed to facilitate reunification while protecting the children from the harm responsible for the removal. In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343, 345 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). The nature and extent of visitation is controlled by the best interests of the children. Id.

During the CINA proceedings, the juvenile court ruled, “The department may discontinue visitation for either parent at any time if they test positive for the use of any illegal drugs.” Thus, Lesa held the keys to continued visitation in her hands. When the parents relapsed into drug use in October 2002, visitation was discontinued. Under the particular facts of this case, we determine the State’s efforts to reunite the children with their parents were reasonable.

IV. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Lesa contends the State did not present sufficient evidence that George and Richard could not be returned to her care. She points out that while she and Dennis were living in a two-bedroom apartment that was too small for all five children, they could accommodate the two boys. We find clear and convincing evidence in the record to show the children cannot be returned to Lesa’s care. Lesa has not successfully dealt with her own problems, and is unable to provide the children the stable, committed, and competent relationship they need. George and Richard should not be forced to endlessly await the maturity of their mother. See In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Iowa 1997). Children simply cannot wait for responsible parenting. In re E.K., 568 N.W.2d 829, 831 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).

V. Best Interests
A. The girls. Lesa asserts termination of her parental rights is not in the best interests of Ashlee, Jayna, and Nora. Lesa recognizes that it is in the girls’ best interests to remain in the care of the maternal grandparents. She points out that this can be accomplished without terminating her parental rights. The juvenile court found it was in the girls’ best interests to have “a permanently established, legally recognized long term relationship with their current custodians . . . The children, especially the girls, are an integral part of their current custodial homes.” We agree with the juvenile court’s conclusion.

B. The boys. Lesa claims termination of her parental rights is not in the best interests of George and Richard. She notes that the children were placed in several different foster homes and states that in the interest of stability the children should be placed with her. We agree that the children need stability, but determine the evidence shows Lesa is unable to provide this stability.

Lesa also claims it is not in the children’s best interests to separate them from their siblings.[2] Wherever possible, brothers and sisters should be kept together; however, our paramount concern is the children’s best interests. In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). Here, the children will remain separated even if George and Richard were returned to Lesa’s care because the girls will remain in the home of the maternal grandparents. Furthermore, it would not be in the best interests of George and Richard to place them in Lesa’s care. Lesa remains unable to meet the children’s needs.

We conclude it is in the best interests of all the children to terminate Lesa’s parental rights.

We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

AFFIRMED.