IN RE INTEREST OF A.M., 699 N.W.2d 686 (Iowa App. 2005)

Nos. 5-379 / 05-0523, 5-380 / 05-0524Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed May 11, 2005

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Gerald W. Magee, Associate Juvenile Judge.

S.A.M. appeals from the termination of her parental rights.AFFIRMED.

DeDra Schroeder of Schroeder Law Office, Charles City, for appellant mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Paul L. Martin, County Attorney, and Steven Tynan, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.

David Grooters of Pappajohn, Shriver, Eide Nicholas, Mason City, for father of A.M.

F. David Eastman of Eastman Law Office, Clear Lake, for father of L.Z. and R.Z.

Mark Young of Young Law Office, Mason City, guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vaitheswaran, JJ.

HUITINK, J.

I. Background Facts Proceedings
Sara is the mother of Alexandria, born in November 1994; Ronan, born in August 1999; and Levi, born in September 2000. Brian is the father of Alexandria. Michael is the father of Ronan and Levi. The children were removed from Sara’s care in October 2003 because of substance abuse and domestic violence issues. Also, Sara’s home was without public utilities, and there was little food for the children.

The children were adjudicated to be children in need of assistance (CINA) under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2003) (child likely to suffer harm due to parent’s failure to supervise). On December 3, 2003, (Alexandria) and December 10, 2003, (Ronan and Levi) the juvenile court entered dispositional orders which ordered Sara to participate in family centered services, complete psychological and substance abuse evaluations, provide drug tests, and obtain employment and housing.

Sara did not cooperate with services. A May 2004 review order noted:

In the past six months she has tested positive 11 times, admitted use of methamphetamine twice and marijuana once, been arrested four times, spent seven days in jail, was involuntarily committed to a hospital for three days and to substance abuse treatment for 14 days, been in crisis shelter twice, missed six of 14 visits, missed four of six visits with a family therapist and was missing for 42 days (12/24/03 to 2/4/04). Assault charges have been filed by [the Court Appointed Special Advocate] against her.

In September 2004 the State filed a petition seeking to terminate Sara’s parental rights to Ronan and Levi. Sara entered a substance abuse treatment program in October 2004, but was discharged before completing the program. She had no further visits with the children or participation in family therapy since that time. In January 2005 the State filed a petition to terminate her parental rights to Alexandria. A combined hearing on the termination petitions was held in February 2005.

The juvenile court terminated Sara’s parental rights pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(e) (parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact with child) and (f) (child four or older, CINA, removed for at least twelve months, and cannot be returned home). The court found:

[Sara’s] had sporadic employment, by her own admission has continued to abuse substances, has failed substance abuse treatment twice, has had sporadic living arrangements (at one time for over 40 days could not be located), has not visited any of the children since at least October 2004, and has not maintained mental health therapy.

The court also noted the children had expressed that they did not want to return to their mother’s care. The court concluded termination of Sara’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests.[1] Sara appeals.

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). Our primary concern is the best interests of the children. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).

III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Sara contends the State did not present sufficient evidence to support termination of her parental rights. She states that she had a place to live and was looking for jobs. Sara asserts that her recent drug tests have been negative for the presence of drugs. She believes the children could be returned to her care.

We look to a parent’s past performance because it indicates the quality of care the parent is capable of providing in the future In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). In considering the impact of drug addiction, we consider the parent’s treatment history to gauge the likelihood the parent will be in a position to parent the child in the foreseeable future. In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998).

In the present case, Sara has never successfully completed a substance abuse treatment program. Sara had a positive drug test as recently as December 2004. Sara did not have stable employment or housing. She was inconsistent in her attendance at services and visitation. We conclude the children could not be safely returned to Sara’s care and her parental rights were properly terminated under section 232.116(1)(f). We do not need to address the other ground for termination. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999).

IV. Additional Time
Sara claims that she should have been given more time prior to termination of parental rights. Patience with parents can soon translate into intolerable hardship for their children. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Iowa 1997). Children simply cannot wait for responsible parenting. Id. We determine Sara had ample time to become a more responsible parent, but she is still not in a position to be able to care for the children. The children need a stable home and should not be required to wait longer for Sara to be able to meet their needs.

V. Other Issues
Although not specifically designated as issues, Sara mentions the best interests of the children, the reasonableness of services, and the placement of the children in foster care instead of with Sara’s sister. The juvenile court rejected Sara’s arguments on these issues, as do we.

We affirm the decision of the juvenile court terminating Sara’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED.