No. 5-127 / 04-2037Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed February 24, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, William S. Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her son. AFFIRMED.
William C. Glass, Washington, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Tim W. Dille, County Attorney, and Patrick J. McAvan, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Stephan S. Small, Fairfield, for appellee-father.
Patricia J. Lipski, Washington, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.
SACKETT, C.J.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her son.[1] She does not challenge the statutory grounds for termination, but contends termination was not in the child’s best interest when she had made progress and was about to be reunited with the child. On de novo review, we affirm.
Rose and Chris are the parents of Gavin, born in March 2003. Gavin was removed from his parents’ care in August 2003 because of non-accidental injuries he sustained in their care.[2]
Chris later admitted injuring Gavin. Gavin was found to be in need of assistance in January 2004. The Department of Human Services provided services to the parents including supervised visits and parent skill development. By the time the State petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights in June 2004, neither had moved beyond two supervised visits weekly. After the first termination hearing in September, an aggressive plan was set up to increase Rose’s visits and progress toward returning Gavin to her care. Rose missed the first extended visit. She said she forgot about it because she was working on a report for school. Later that same week Chris assaulted Rose in her apartment after she refused sexual relations with him. Visits remained supervised through the time of the second termination hearing in November.
At the termination hearings, there was evidence Rose refused to recognize the seriousness of Chris’s abuse of Gavin. There was concern she would not protect Gavin from harm if he were returned to her care, and disappointment she failed to start the extended visits designed to reunite her with Gavin. The juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence Gavin could not be returned to Rose’s care at the time of the second hearing and terminated her parental rights under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(h) (2003).
On appeal, Rose contends termination of her parental rights was not in Gavin’s best interest “where she had made progress and reached a point in the proceeding where she was about to be reunited with her children.”[3]
“A parent does not have an unlimited amount of time in which to correct his or her deficiencies.” In re H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d 675, 677 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). Section 232.116(1)(h)(3) provides for a six-month time period for parents of children Gavin’s age. “It is unnecessary to take from the children’s future any more than is demanded by statute.” In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 614
(Iowa 1987). By the time of the final termination hearing, Gavin had been out of Rose’s care for the last sixteen of the twenty-one months of his life Although Rose demonstrated the ability to parent him adequately during the two-hour supervised visits, the visitation supervisor and case worker were concerned she could not protect him from harm from others. Iowa’s termination statutes are preventative as well as remedial. In re E.B.L., 501 N.W.2d 547, 549 (Iowa 1993). “[T]he General Assembly has carefully crafted a legislative framework for state intercession into the parent-child relationship while protecting wherever possible the integrity of the family unit.” In re I.L.G.R., 433 N.W.2d 681, 689 (Iowa 1988). The statutes are designed to prevent probable harm to a child. E.B.L., 501 N.W.2d at 549. When given the opportunity, after the first termination hearing, to begin an accelerated visitation schedule designed to reunite her with Gavin, Rose said she forgot the first extended visit. She was unable to protect herself from Chris’s assault in her own apartment later that same week. Gavin could not be returned to Rose’s care at the time of the final termination hearing. She already had been given additional time for reunification and failed. The juvenile court properly terminated her parental rights to Gavin.
AFFIRMED.