IN RE J.G., 683 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa App. 2004)

No. 4-245 / 04-0308Court of Appeals of Iowa.
April 14, 2004.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, William H. Joy, Judge.

A mother appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to one child. AFFIRMED.

Misheal Waller-Little, Bouton, for appellant mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner and Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney Generals, Wayne Reisetter, County Attorney, and Sean Wieser, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.

Jason Hauser, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.

MILLER, J.

A mother appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to a son. We affirm.

Background Facts and Proceedings.

Cathi is the mother, and Felipe the father, of “Jesse,” born in January 1992. The juvenile court adjudicated Jesse a child in need of assistance (CINA) on February 14, 2001, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(f) (2001) (child in need of treatment for mental illness or disorder or emotional damage, parent is unwilling or unable to provide such treatment). After over a year of services to Jesse and Cathi, Jesse was removed from the physical care of his parents and placed in the custody of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) on March 13, 2002. He has not thereafter been in the physical custody of a parent or parents.

Following a February 4, 2004 contested hearing, the juvenile court terminated Cathi’s parental rights by an order filed February 11, 2004.[1] The court terminated Cathi’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(e) (child adjudicated a CINA, removed from physical custody of parents at least six consecutive months, parents have not maintained contact with child and have made no reasonable efforts to resume care of the child) and (f) (child four or older, adjudicated a CINA, removed from parents’ physical custody at least twelve of last eighteen months, cannot be returned to parents at present time) (2003). Cathi appeals.

Scope and Standards of Review.

We review termination proceedings de novo. Although we are not bound by them, we give weight to the trial court’s findings of fact, especially when considering credibility of witnesses. The primary interest in termination proceedings is the best interests of the child. To support the termination of parental rights, the State must establish the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116 by clear and convincing evidence.

In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (citations omitted).

Discussion and Disposition.

On appeal Cathi contends that under section 232.116(1)(f) the State failed to meet its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that at the present time Jesse could not be returned to her custody. This implicates the fourth element of section 232.116(1)(f), which requires a showing that at the present time the child cannot be returned to the custody of the parent without meeting the definition of a CINA. See, e.g., In re M.L.W., 461 N.W.2d 609, 611 (Iowa Ct.App. 1990).

Cathi has longstanding and ongoing mental health and substance abuse problems. These problems have caused or contributed to an inability or unwillingness on her part to provide Jesse with needed structure in his life, to supervise him, and to control his activities and behavior. Following Jesse’s March 2002 removal, Cathi was offered numerous services, including visitation. Her visits with Jesse were, however, sporadic and infrequent, as she moved frequently and did not follow through with services. Although her visits had progressed to being unsupervised, in the spring of 2003 they reverted to supervised visits.

In about June 2003 Cathi entered Jackson’s Women Recovery in Sioux City. She would have been able to have Jesse with her there. However, after about two weeks she left the program, returned shortly, and after about another week left against medical advice. She then traveled to Florida, California, and other locations. She had no visits with Jesse from June to August 2003.

At some later point Cathi attempted suicide, and was then hospitalized at Mary Greeley Hospital for a week. She later spent thirty days in the chemical dependency unit at Mt. Pleasant for substance abuse treatment. During her time in Mt. Pleasant Cathi also received mental health treatment.

On January 12, 2004, Cathi entered the Bernie Lorenz facility in Des Moines, a halfway house for women in recovery from alcohol dependency. It provides various services, including chemical dependency counseling and job seeking assistance. Children are not allowed to reside with their mothers at Bernie Lorenz. The program is usually six months or more in length. As of January 22, 2004, shortly before the termination hearing, Cathi’s therapist opined that although Kathy was at last making a good start on dealing with her substance abuse and multiple mental health issues, she was not yet even able to care for herself, much less able to care for a child.

We find, as the juvenile court did, the State has proved by clear and convincing evidence that as of the time of the termination hearing Jesse could not be placed in Cathi’s custody without being subject to some harm which would justify his adjudication as a CINA. See Iowa Code § 232.2(6)(c)(2) (child who is imminently likely to suffer harmful effects as a result of the failure of the child’s parent to exercise a reasonable degree of care in supervising the child). Having thus found the State proved the grounds for termination of Cathi’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f), we need not determine whether the State also proved the grounds for termination under section 232.116(1)(e). See In re A.J., 553 N.W.2d 909, 911
(Iowa Ct.App. 1996) (holding we only need to find grounds to terminate under one of the statutory provisions relied on by the district court in order to affirm).

Cathi contends that due to her progress the State should allow her additional time to continue therapy until the therapists can recommend Jesse’s custody be returned to her. The State argues in turn that Cathi has been given years to deal with her mental health and substance abuse issues, and that while she may have made some eleventh hour progress, the progress is insufficient given the level of family dysfunction and adjudicatory risk that continues.

We agree with the State’s position. A parent does not have an unlimited amount of time within which to correct her deficiencies. In re H.L.R.B., 567 N.W.2d 675, 677
(Iowa Ct.App. 1997). We have repeatedly followed the principle that the statutory timeline must be followed and children should not be forced to wait for their parent to be able to provide for their care. In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). It is unnecessary to take from children’s future any more than is demanded by statute. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Iowa 1997). This is because patience with parents can soon translate into intolerable hardship for their children. Id.

Jesse is twelve years of age. He has been out of his parents’ physical custody for two years. Jesse has suffered from years of inadequate supervision, inadequate direction, inadequate control, and inadequate treatment for his emotional and behavioral problems. He desperately needs stability and structure, both now and for the years to come. Cathi has longstanding and unresolved mental health and substance abuse problems. Resolving those problems, or even controlling them to the point Cathi could have Jesse’s custody, will require months, if not years. Extending additional time for that to occur would be strongly contrary to Jesse’s best interest. We decline to do so.

AFFIRMED.