IN INTEREST OF T.B., 759 N.W.2d 813 (Iowa App. 2009)

No. 08-1378.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
October 29, 2008.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Thomas W. Mott, District Associate Judge.

A mother appeals from the district court’s order terminating her parental rights to her three children. AFFIRMED.

Joanie L. Grife of Bennett, Steffens Grife, P.C., Marshalltown, for appellant mother. Meegan Keller, Altoona, for appellant father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Johnson, County Attorney, and James Cleverley, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.

Maria Ruhtenberg of Whitfield Eddy, Des Moines, for minor children.

Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and MAHAN and MILLER, JJ.

VOGEL, P.J.

Jamie appeals from the district court’s order terminating her parental rights to T.B. (born January 2001), I.B. (born October 2003), and R.B. (born December 2005) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (f), (h) and (i), (2007).[1] She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.

Upon our de novo review of the record, we conclude that Jamie’s arguments are without merit and termination is clearly in the children’s best interests. See In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006) (de novo review). The district court had before it a wealth of information supporting termination. In 1999, Jamie’s rights to a son were terminated. In 2002, the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) became involved with the family. Although Jamie was offered numerous services over the years, she was unable to learn basic parenting skills that would allow her to provide routine care and protect the safety of her children. Between March 2003 and April 2008, there were nine founded child abuse reports for failure to provide adequate shelter and supervision. During this time the children were removed from Jamie’s home three times and were out of her care for over two years. In March 2008, I.B.’s therapist reported that Jamie had continually failed to meet adequately the needs of the children and stated: “There is a chronic, repeated, gross failure to meet the emotional and physical needs of the children. This is clearly evidenced in the six-year history of DHS involvement with this family.” A DHS social worker also testified that Jamie had not progressed in her ability to provide a safe environment.

Furthermore, we find that termination is in the children’s best interests. Each time the children were removed, they were placed with the same foster family, who is willing to adopt them. A DHS social worker testified that it was in the children’s best interests to allow them to remain in their foster home where they are “protected and safe and their needs will be consistently met.” The children have done well in foster care and are in need of permanent placement. See J.E., 723 N.W.2d at 801 (Cady, J., concurring specially) (stating children’s safety and their need for a permanent home are the defining elements in determining a child’s best interests). Thus, we affirm the district court.

AFFIRMED.