No. 5-187 / 05-0158.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
March 31, 2005.
Decisions without published opinions. Affirmed.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John G. Mullen, Judge.
C.B. and T.B. appeal from the termination of their parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Stephen Newport of Newport Newport, P.L.C., Davenport, for appellant mother.
Harold Delange, Davenport, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Gerda Lane, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Dana Copell, Davenport, for minor children.
Marsha Arnold, Davenport, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Mahan, JJ.
MAHAN, J.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Troy and Cheryl are the parents of Kyle, born in 1992; Michael, born in 1994; Samantha, born in 1997; and twins Amanda and Ashley, born in 1998. The family had many problems and began receiving services in 1999. The condition of the house was marginal. There were incidents of domestic abuse between the parents. There were also several incidents of physical abuse of the children by Troy. The children all have some level of developmental delays.
In January 2003 the children were adjudicated to be children in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b) (2003) (parent has physically abused child) and (c)(2) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent’s failure to supervise). The children remained in the custody of Cheryl.[1] In the dispositional order, the juvenile court ordered the parents to comply with the case permanency plan.
In June 2003 Troy was arrested for domestic violence against Cheryl. The children were removed from Cheryl’s care in July 2003, after she had invited a registered sex offender into the home and allowed him to watch the children. As a result, Ashley and Amanda were sexually abused. Furthermore, the house remained in a horrible condition. Thereafter, the parents made some progress with services. Cheryl completed an outpatient program for alcohol abuse. The parents both attended a batterers’ education program and completed a parenting class.
The Department of Human Services increased visitation, and in August 2004 permitted a three-day overnight visit to determine whether the parents’ were ready to assume care of the children. There was sexual touching between some of the children, which was reported to the parents by one of the children. The parents did not divulge the problem to social workers, even when social workers specifically asked them about it. Visitation returned to supervised, and overnight visits ceased because the parents were not taking steps to appropriately address the children’s issues.
In November 2004 the State filed a petition seeking termination of the parents’ rights. The juvenile court terminated the parents’ rights under sections 232.116(1)(d) (2005) (child CINA for physical abuse, circumstances continue despite the receipt of services, (f) (child four or older, CINA, removed for at least twelve months, and cannot be returned home), and (h) (child three or younger, CINA, removed for at least six months, and cannot be returned home).[2] The court stated:
Parental behaviors since August of 2004 supports a conclusion that the parents have not made sufficient changes in their own attitudes, behaviors or abilities to address the needs of their children. . . . The Court concludes that it is unlikely that the parents would comply with child safety planning and the Court questions whether they would act in a way to keep the children safe, even from their own behaviors.
The court then noted a recent incident where Troy had kicked Kyle, and concluded “the issues of anger control and violence still remain very much at issue.” Troy and Cheryl appeal.
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
The parents’ appeal is based on the premise that in August 2004 the Department was ready to return the children to their care, but after the single incident of sexual acting out, the Department immediately decided to seek termination of the parents’ rights. The parents claim the Department unilaterally terminated reasonable efforts and reunification services after the August 2004 incident.
The parents’ arguments are not supported by the evidence. The record shows the Department and other service workers continued to have concerns, but decided to allow the three-day visitation to see if the parents could successfully care for the children. In addition to the parents’ failure to report the sexual acting out, there were concerns about unsanitary conditions in the home and Troy’s inability to control his temper. The August 2004 incident was considered together with the parents’ long history of poor decision-making. The Department continued to provide services to the family, although its recommendation changed from reunification to adoption. The services provided to the family were reasonable under the facts of the case.
IV. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The parents contend that termination of their parental rights was premature because they had recently made significant progress in their efforts to be able to care for the children. This family received services for a very long time. The parents, however, were unable to change their conduct to be better able to meet the children’s needs. At some point, the rights and needs of the children must rise above the rights and needs of the parents. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). We conclude there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of the parents’ rights.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.