No. 5-192 / 04-2058.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
March 31, 2005.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Stephen C. Gerard, II, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her child. AFFIRMED.
Christine Boyer, Iowa City, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, J. Patrick White, County Attorney, and Deborah Minot, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Sue E. Kirk of Honohan, Epley, Braddock Brenneman, Iowa City, for the father.
Alan R. Bohanan, Iowa City, for the children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
EISENHAUER, J.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children. She contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. We review her claim de novo. In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002).
The mother’s parental rights to both children were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), and (i) (2003). The mother’s parental rights were also terminated pursuant to section 232.116(f) as to M.S., and section 232.116(e) as to Q.S. We need only find termination proper under one ground to affirm. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). Termination is appropriate under section 232.116(1)(d) where:
(1) The court has previously adjudicated the child to be a child in need of assistance after finding the child to have been physically or sexually abused or neglected as the result of the acts or omissions of one or both parents, or the court has previously adjudicated a child who is a member of the same family to be a child in need of assistance after such a finding.
(2) Subsequent to the child in need of assistance adjudication, the parents were offered or received services to correct the circumstance which led to the adjudication, and the circumstance continues to exist despite the offer or receipt of services.
The mother does not dispute the first element has been proven. Instead, she contends there is no clear and convincing evidence that the substance abuse that led to her neglect of the children remained an issue at the time of termination.
We conclude the State has proven the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. The children were first removed from the mother’s care upon allegations that she was drinking heavily and frequently intoxicated while caring for her children. Although the mother regained care of her children in October 2002, by late December 2002 alcohol use was again impairing the mother’s ability to care for her children. In June 2003, she was found “staggering drunk” while caring for her children. The mother admits to frequent use of alcohol. She was intoxicated during a visit with her children in the fall of 2003. She smelled of the odor of an alcoholic beverage and tested positive for alcohol immediately after a court hearing in March 2004. She has not taken serious steps to address her alcohol use despite being offered inpatient and out patient substance abuse treatment. She continues to deny a problem and has failed to demonstrate an extended period of sobriety. As the juvenile court noted:
[The mother] has significant substance abuse issues that she has made no serious effort to address. She is most likely an alcoholic but denies having any problems with alcohol. Her testimony at trial disputes some prior statements regarding the extent of her substance use as reported in substance abuse evaluations. Even so, she admits to frequent use of alcohol. She was unable to refrain from the consumption of alcohol during the course of this case and while attempting to regain the care of her children. Any prognosis for [the mother] to remain sober and substance free must be very guarded. [The mother’s] lack of commitment to substance abuse treatment has resulted in no extended periods of sobriety despite the assistance of treatment programs.
[The mother] has adopted a lifestyle of regular alcohol use and association with others who are substance abusers or drug users. [The mother] does not take ownership of the problems which has resulted in the loss of care of her children. She is too focused on her own life. Her desire to pursue her own enjoyments is stronger than her commitment to motherhood.
We agree with the trial court’s assessment of the evidence. The crucial days of childhood cannot be suspended while the mother experiments with ways to face up to her own problems. See In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Iowa 1997). The children are six and eight years old and have been in foster care since June 2003. The children simply cannot wait for responsible parenting. Id. The mother has shown she is unable to provide responsible parenting. The children need permanency. Accordingly, we affirm the order terminating the mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.