No. 5-191 / 04-1992.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
March 31, 2005.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Sylvia Lewis, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her four children. AFFIRMED.
Sue Kirk of Honohan, Eply, Braddock Brenneman, Iowa City, for mother-appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, J. Patrick White, County Attorney, and Deborah Farmer Minot, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Don Schroeder, West Liberty, for the father.
Karen Egerton of Stein, Moreland, Moore Egerton, Iowa City, guardian ad litem for the children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
VAITHESWARAN, J.
Nikita appeals the termination of her parental rights to N.M., E.H., M.G., and D.C., born between 1995 and 2002. She contends the record lacks clear and convincing evidence to support termination. The State counters that the statutory termination grounds challenged on appeal do not coincide with the grounds on which the district court relied. The State urges us to dismiss the appeal on this basis. While we agree that Nikita did not challenge the correct Code provisions, we will assume she intended to appeal the grounds quoted by the district court See Iowa Code §§ 232.116(1)(f), (h) (2003) (requiring proof that children cannot be returned to parent’s custody).
On our de novo review of the record, we conclude the State proved those grounds. The children were removed from Nikita’s care in 2002 due to Nikita’s failure to appropriately supervise them. During the next twenty-one months, Nikita was afforded multiple opportunities to reunify but continued to repeat past mistakes.
The children were returned to Nikita’s care within two weeks of the 2002 removal. Two months later, she left for Chicago, placing them with a caretaker who suffered from schizophrenia.
The children were removed a second time. Despite this set-back, a Department of Human Services caseworker expressed hope “that Nikita has it in her to get her act together and parent the children in an appropriate way.” Nikita did “get her act together” and, by the end of 2003, all four children were once again in her care.
This reunification was also short-lived. In late February and early March, 2004, Nikita again left for Chicago. Although the children were appropriately supervised, the older two missed several days of school. Nikita gave the Department and the schools implausible and inconsistent explanations for the trip and the children’s absence.
The children were removed a third and final time. Three months after this removal, Nikita’s visitation was suspended. The Department cited a threat she made to her oldest son and her attempt to have unapproved contact with the older children at their foster mother’s church. Nikita declined to participate in other reunification services. A week before the hearing, she was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.
At the termination hearing, a Department caseworker and a family therapist recommended termination of Nikita’s parental rights based on the cited supervision issues as well as domestic violence in the home, marijuana and alcohol use, and possible physical abuse of the children.[1] The record supports the Department’s view that the children could not be returned to Nikita’s custody.
Termination of Nikita’s parental rights to these children was also in their best interests. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). N.M. was nine years old at the time of the termination hearing. A family therapist testified he was in a “self-contained [behavioral disorder] classroom” based on his “extremely aggressive behaviors that he demonstrated on a regular basis in the school setting.” Although he was extremely attached to his mother, the therapist stated he had “a very strong fear of abandonment.” While she believed termination of Nikita’s parental rights would result in “some emotional setbacks” for N.M., she opined that his anger would “continue to escalate” if he were returned to her custody.
As for E.H., the therapist testified his conduct was also “very defiant” and included “destructive behaviors” in the classroom. This acting out may have been a reaction to the separation from Nikita, as he told the therapist, “if I could have one wish, my wish would be to go home and live with my mom again.” Nevertheless, given the multiple removals, we see no reason to reject the therapist’s opinion that,
[I]f he were to return to an environment in which there is not a lot of stability, not a lot of predictability, issues with abandonment, physical aggression, abandonment, substance abuse, we would continue to go on a path — a downward spiraling, and I believe that eventually he would be seeing very aggressive behaviors that are either similar to and more severe of those of [N.M.] at this stage.
The third child, M.G., did not wish to be returned to her mother. According to the family therapist, she “didn’t demonstrate any sadness or anger over being told that she could no longer see her mother.”
The fourth child, D.C., was too young to express a preference. The Department’s caseworker stated D.C. was in foster care for fifteen of the eighteen months preceding the termination hearing and was a “very happy child.”
We have no doubt that Nikita deeply loves her children. She testified as much at the termination hearing and implored the court to give her another chance. That chance was already given to her. The Department, its service provider, and the district court went to extraordinary lengths to facilitate reunification, without success. Termination is the only viable alternative.
AFFIRMED.