No. 4-145 / 04-0144Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed March 10, 2004
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Iowa County, Susan Flaherty, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court’s permanency order.AFFIRMED.
Dennis Mathahs, Marengo, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempes, Assistant Attorney General, Lewis McMeen, County Attorney, and Timothy McMeen, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Robert Davison, Cedar Rapids, for father.
Eric Tindal, of Saylor Tindal, P.L.C., Williamsburg, for the children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
EISENHAUER, J.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court’s permanency order, changing the permanency goal for her children from reunification to long-term relative placement. She contends it is in the best interest for the children that reunification remain the permanency goal. We review her claim de novo. In re N.M., 528 N.W.2d 94, 96 (Iowa 1995).
The mother has two children born of different fathers. The children are now eleven and six years old. The children were adjudicated in need of assistance in March 2002 based upon drug usage in the mother’s home and the mother leaving the children unsupervised to run errands. The daughter was placed in shelter care in December 2002. The son was removed from his mother’s care by order dated February 4, 2003, after the mother failed to follow through with substance abuse treatment. After placement in family foster homes, the daughter was placed in the care of her maternal grandmother and the son was placed with his paternal grandmother while the mother attempted to overcome her substance abuse problems and gain employment. Following a January 14, 2004 permanency hearing, the juvenile court found the children could not be returned to the custody of their mother and termination of parental rights was not warranted. It placed the children in the custody and guardianship of the respective grandmothers and changed the permanency goal from reunification to “another planned permanent living arrangement such as long-term relative placement,” citing section 232.104(2)(d)(1).
Prior to entering a permanency order, convincing evidence must show:
a. A termination of the parent-child relationship would not be in the best interest of the child.
b. Services were offered to the child’s family to correct the situation which led to the child’s removal from the home.
c. The child cannot be returned to the child’s home.
Iowa Code § 232.104(3) (2003). The mother does not dispute these grounds have been shown by convincing evidence.
The best interests of the child control the court’s decision in granting a permanency order in a child custody matter. In re N.M., 528 N.W.2d at 96. There is a rebuttable presumption that the child’s best interests are served by parental custody. Id.
The mother also alleges it is in the best interest of the children to remain together.
The options available to the court after making the findings pursuant to Iowa Code Section 232.104(3) and concluding termination of parental rights is not appropriate are:
(1) Transfer guardianship and custody of the child to a suitable person.
(2) Transfer sole custody of the child from one parent to another parent.
(3) Transfer custody of the child to a suitable person for the purpose of long-term care.
(4) If the department has documented to the court’s satisfaction a compelling reason for determining that an order under the other subparagraphs of this paragraph would not be in the child’s best interest, order another planned permanent living arrangement for the child.
Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(d). We conclude the court transferred guardianship and custody to the grandmothers, and despite the reference to a planned permanent living arrangement, did so pursuant to section 232.104(2)(d)(1).
We also conclude the best interest of the children warrant changing the permanency goal to long-term placement. The mother has been unable to sufficiently deal with her substance abuse problem. Although she finished a substance-abuse program, she was to receive ongoing treatment, which she failed to do. The mother also failed to provide urine for analysis for several months. Although she denied continuing to use controlled substances, the mother later admitted to smoking marijuana in late December 2003, just a few weeks before the permanency hearing. She also has not consistently maintained employment. We can judge a mother’s future behavior by her past actions. See In re K.F., 437 N.W.2d 559, 560 (Iowa 1989). The mother has not shown she is able to adequately parent her children. On appeal, the mother is essentially asking for more time to become a fit parent. While the law requires a “full measure of patience with troubled parents who attempt to remedy a lack of parenting skills,” this patience has been built into the statutory scheme of chapter 232 In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000). Children should not be forced to endlessly await the maturity of a natural parent. Id. At some point, the rights and needs of the child rise above the rights and needs of the parent. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). The children need permanency. They are thriving in their grandmothers’ care and the case plan ordered by the court provides for a continued relationship between the children and their mother. The entry of the permanency order does not preclude the mother from regaining custody of the children in the future. See Iowa Code §232.104(5). We find convincing evidence that long-term placement is in the best interest of the children.
AFFIRMED.