No. 5-488 / 04-2035Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed July 13, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Harrison County, Kathleen A. Kilnoski, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her two children. AFFIRMED.
Jack White, Missouri Valley, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Judson L. Frisk, County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Joel Niebaum, Missouri Valley, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
ZIMMER, J.
Micky V. appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her two children. Upon our de novo review, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Micky is the mother of S.V., born November 10, 1999, and K.G., born December 8, 1988. Todd V., Micky’s estranged husband, is the putative father of S.V., and Sebastini S. is the putative father of K.G. The Department of Human Services became involved with the family around July 2002. An investigation by the department revealed that S.V. and K.G. had witnessed domestic violence between Micky and Todd V. The department also confirmed that K.G. had been sexually abused by at least three people. On April 30, 2003, K.G. was placed in protective custody after she ran away from home. K.G. has remained continuously in the department’s custody since that time with no trial periods at home.
On May 15, 2003, the juvenile court adjudicated K.G. and S.V. as children in need of assistance (CINA) under Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n) (2003). In addition to the domestic violence and sexual abuse, the department was also concerned about Micky’s drug abuse and failure to supervise the children. At the disposition hearing on June 4, 2003, the court ordered that S.V. remain in her mother’s custody and that K.G. remain in foster care. In November 2003, after completing outpatient drug treatment, Micky tested positive for amphetamine. An analysis of S.V.’s hair was also positive for amphetamines, indicating that she had been exposed to illegal drug use. S.V. was removed from her mother’s custody on December 11, 2003, and has remained continuously in the department’s custody since that time.
The department provided numerous services to Micky after the children were removed from the home. Unfortunately, Micky did not respond well to the services. On October 8, 2004, the State petitioned to terminate Micky’s parental rights to her children. Following a contested hearing, the court terminated Micky’s parental rights with respect to both children on December 14, 2004. The court also terminated the parental rights of K.G.’s putative father, Sebastini S., and S.V.’s putative father, Todd V. Only Micky appeals.
II. Scope of Review
We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2001). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). When the court terminates 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).
III. Discussion
On appeal, Micky claims (1) she has not used illegal drugs/substances since her pretrial release to a structured residence with mandatory outpatient substance abuse treatment, and (2) she could take custody of the children in the structured residence provided she complied with the mandatory outpatient requirements.
The juvenile court terminated Micky’s parental rights as to K.G. under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (e), (f), and (l). The court terminated Micky’s parental rights with respect to S.V. under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (e), and (l).[1]
In order to terminate a parent’s rights under section 232.116(1)(f), the State must establish that (1) the child is four years of age or older, (2) the child is in need of assistance, (3) the child has been removed for twelve of the last eighteen months or for the last twelve consecutive months, and (4) the child cannot be returned home. Termination under section 232.116(1)(l) requires proof that (1) the child is in need of assistance, (2) the parent has a substance abuse problem, and (3) the child cannot be returned within a reasonable time.
Micky has a lengthy history of substance abuse. She has struggled with alcohol and substance abuse since she was a teen. She was arrested in November 2002 for possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. She continued to abuse controlled substances during the CINA proceedings. After she completed an outpatient drug treatment program in August 2003, she tested positive for amphetamine in November 2003, January 2004 and May 2004. Micky resides in a structured residence with a mandatory outpatient substance abuse treatment program as a result of three pending federal drug charges, each of which carries a maximum sentence of twenty years in prison. Micky also suffers from several mental health disorders. She did not complete the inpatient treatment or mental health treatment that she needed to address her parenting deficiencies.
It is apparent that Micky has a severe, chronic substance abuse problem and presents a danger to her children. We agree with the juvenile court’s conclusion that the children could not be safely returned to their mother’s care at the time of the termination hearing or at any time in the foreseeable future. We conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court’s decision to terminate Micky’s parental rights as to K.G. under section 232.116(1)(f) and as to S.V. under section 232.116(1)(l).
Even if the statutory requirements are met, termination of Micky’s parental rights must still be in K.G. and S.V.’s best interests. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). In determining the children’s best interests, we consider what the future likely holds if they are returned to Micky. See In re J.W.D., 458 N.W.2d 8, 10 (Iowa Ct.App. 1990). “Insight for that determination is to be gained from evidence of the parents’ past performance for that performance may be indicative of the quality of future care the parents are capable of providing.” In re A.J., 553 N.W.2d 909, 913 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996).
We agree with the juvenile court’s determination that termination of Micky’s parental rights is in the best interest of both children given Micky’s persistent and unresolved drug problem, her pending federal charges, and her ongoing mental health problems. Children should not be forced to endlessly await the maturity of a natural parent. C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 494. At some point, the rights and needs of the children rise above the rights and needs of the parent. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
Upon de novo review, we conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court’s decision to terminate Micky’s parental rights.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.