No. 4-435 / 04-0482.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
August 11, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Constance Cohen, Associate Juvenile Judge.
R.A. appeals from the termination of her parental rights.AFFIRMED.
Karen Taylor of Taylor Law Offices, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Michelle Chenoweth, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Jeffrey Carter, Des Moines, for father.
Elias Gastelo, Laredo, Texas, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Miller, JJ.
HUITINK, J.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Roshanda and Alfredo are the parents of Rosalinda, born in July 2000. Rosalinda was removed from their care in December 2001 after she was physically abused by Roshanda. As a result, Roshanda pled guilty to child endangerment and was placed on probation.
On February 14, 2002, Rosalinda was adjudicated to be a child in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b) (Supp. 2001) (parent has physically abused child) and (c)(2) (child is likely to suffer harm due to lack of supervision). In the resulting dispositional order entered March 26, 2002, both parents were ordered to complete parenting classes and anger management therapy. Roshanda and Alfredo were also ordered to participate in individual therapy.
Roshanda entered the Lighthouse Homeless Youth Center and began to participate in the court-ordered services. On June 25, 2002, Rosalinda was returned to Roshanda’s care, subject to her continued participation in court-ordered services and the Lighthouse program.
Roshanda subsequently married Alfredo. Contrary to the court’s express prohibition, Roshanda allowed Alfredo to have contact with Rosalinda. In February 2003, Roshanda told social workers she could no longer care for Rosalinda, and Rosalinda was accordingly returned to foster care.
In October 2003, the State filed a petition seeking termination of Roshanda’s and Alfredo’s parental rights. Alfredo consented to termination of his parental rights. After a trial on the merits of the State’s petition, the juvenile court terminated Roshanda’s parental rights pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(d) (circumstances which led to CINA adjudication continue despite the receipt of services) (2003) and (h) (child adjudicated CINA and cannot be safely returned home). Roshanda appeals, claiming there is insufficient evidence in the record to support termination of her parental rights.
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. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Roshanda contends the State failed in its burden to establish any grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. Roshanda claims the record shows that she addressed all of the circumstances necessitating Rosalinda’s adjudication by the time of the termination hearing, including housing, employment, and stability issues.
The juvenile court acknowledged Roshanda’s improved circumstances but also noted:
Although Roshanda should be commended for having recently established herself in an appropriate setting, the Court cannot conclude that the stability will continue or that Roshanda will make better decisions than she has in the recent past.
The juvenile court also found:
In addition to her decision to leave the Lighthouse to reunify with Alfredo knowing that the consequence would be the loss of custody of her daughter, Roshanda has made other troubling decisions. For example, Roshanda testified that Alfredo is a good father and that if she could not maintain custody of Rosalinda, she would like for Alfredo to take custody of her. Roshanda arrived at this conclusion even with the knowledge that Alfredo had his parental rights terminated with respect to another child, that he had sexual contact with her underage sister, and that he was domestically violent and had failed to resolve his anger issues. Further, Rachel Vos Carrillo, the family center counselor with Lutheran Services of Iowa who had worked with Roshanda for two years, enumerated many other disturbing concerns. Although, for the most part, Roshanda kept appointments with Miss Vos Carrillo, she missed an appointment with her the week prior to the termination proceedings to go out with friends. Such a decision indicates poor priorities. She also described Roshanda as a person who will continue to develop relationships with inappropriate partners. Even if Alfredo is finally in the past, Roshanda is unable to recognize red flags in relationships. She went directly from one domestically violent relationship with Alfredo to another violent relationship with a very controlling woman. She uses poor judgment in developing friendships.
Our review of the record discloses abundant support for these findings, and we adopt them as our own. We, like the juvenile court, conclude from Roshanda’s past performance that she lacks the insight and commitment to parenting that Rosalinda’s long-term best interests require. Under these circumstances, further reunification efforts would serve only to postpone the inevitable. We accordingly affirm the juvenile court’s decision to terminate Roshanda’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.