No. 5-190 / 05-0187.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
March 31, 2005.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Gary K. Anderson, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her son. AFFIRMED.
Phil Caniglia, Council Bluffs, for appellant.
Thomas Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Wilber, County Attorney, and Dawn Eimers, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
William McGinn, Council Bluffs, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.
HECHT, J.
Kenna is the mother of Miguel, who was born on June 27, 2002. Miguel was originally removed from Kenna’s care on February 5, 2003 because of Kenna’s “erratic” behavior. At a subsequent temporary removal hearing, a number of concerns were raised regarding Kenna’s parenting. On one occasion Kenna was seen “popping Xanax” and driving with Miguel in her car with a wobbling wheel. Miguel’s bottles were consistently “scummy.” Kenna’s mental health and criminal involvement, and her failure to provide a crib for Miguel also reflected poorly on her parenting. Miguel was later adjudicated to be a child in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n) (2003). The court specifically noted Kenna’s numerous missed appointments, alcohol abuse, recklessness with Miguel, mental health issues, and positive test for the presence of methamphetamine.
On August 9, 2004, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate Kenna’s parental rights to Miguel. Following a hearing on that petition, the juvenile court terminated Kenna’s parental rights under sections 232.116(1)(b), (e), (h) and (l). Kenna appeals, contending DHS did not provide sufficient reunification services, clear and convincing evidence does not support termination, and termination is not in the child’s best interests.
We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). While the district court terminated the parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we will affirm if at least one ground has been proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995).
Upon our de novo review of the record, we find clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court’s decision to terminate Kenna’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h) (three or younger, CINA, removed for six months, cannot be returned to parent’s custody). The first three elements are not in dispute. The record also amply supports a finding that Miguel “cannot be returned to the custody” of Kenna. See Iowa Code §232.116(1)(h)(4). A substance abuse evaluator found Kenna suffered from alcohol dependence, methamphetamine abuse, and past cocaine addiction. A psychiatric evaluation noted Kenna demonstrated symptoms of clinical depression. All of these played a part in Miguel’s removal from her care. However, despite a variety of services made available to her, Kenna has failed to demonstrate progress in overcoming substance abuse issues, criminal behavior, and mental health concerns. To return Miguel to Kenna’s care would only subject him to a high risk of abuse or neglect.
Moreover, we conclude termination of Kenna’s parental rights is in the best interest of Miguel. Kenna’s last contact with Miguel was in August of 2003. In November of 2003, Kenna moved to Nevada and has had minimal communication with Iowa authorities since then. While in Nevada she failed to attend scheduled visits with Miguel and was arrested and incarcerated at least twice. She also failed to attend either the permanency hearing or the termination hearing. The record supports that Kenna has made no commitment to resuming care of her child.
Finally, we reject Kenna’s contention that reunification services were inadequate. In particular, Kenna notes that at a temporary removal hearing on February 13, 2004, she requested relative placement. The court’s subsequent order called for a home study of a relative of Miguel who resided in Nebraska. Following a September 29, 2004 permanency hearing, the juvenile court found that a case manager had willfully failed to request the home study, as ordered. When that home study was eventually done, however, it was determined that the Nebraska relative was not a suitable placement.
Kenna now claims that had she not been misled by the deliberate falsehoods about the prospects for relative placement, she “could have taken the necessary steps to complete the services required by the Court for reunification with the child.” We are not convinced. None of Kenna’s actions throughout this case give any indication she was willing to do more than she actually did to regain Miguel’s custody. Further, after the home study was finally done, the proposed home was found to be inappropriate. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.