No. 5-504 / 05-0720Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed July 13, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Victor Lathrop, Associate Juvenile Judge.
Katie, the mother of X.B., appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Jennifer Steffens, of Grimes, Buck, Schoell, Beach Hitchins, Marshalltown, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer Miller, County Attorney, and Susan Klaessy, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Patrick Wilson, Marshalltown, intervenor.
Randal Giannetto, Marshalltown, guardian ad litem for the child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
VAITHESWARAN, J.
Katie appeals the termination of her parental rights to X.B., born in September 2003. She contends: (1) the State failed to prove that the child could not be returned to her, (2) the Department of Human Services did not make reasonable efforts toward reunification, and (3) termination was not in the child’s best interests. On our de novo review of the record, we are not persuaded by these contentions.
Katie was eighteen years old at the time of the termination hearing. She began using illegal drugs at the age of twelve. Her drug of choice was intravenously-delivered methamphetamine.
Katie ran away from home, became a child in need of assistance, and left fourteen different placements in her young life. By the time she was sixteen, she had one child who was removed from her care.
X.B. was her second child. Shortly after he was born, Katie informed a Department social worker that she was having unsupervised contact with her older child, in violation of a court order. Days later, the State obtained an order temporarily removing X.B. from her care. He was subsequently adjudicated a child in need of assistance.
The Department initiated a variety of services for Katie and X.B. For example, a social worker had daily contact with Katie to ensure that X.B., less than a month old at the time, received breast milk from his mother. In addition, the Department facilitated supervised visitation.
In December 2003, Katie disappeared. When she was found three months later, the Department again attempted to provide reunification services. Katie expressed an interest, but did not come to scheduled appointments and did not keep the Department informed of her whereabouts.
In the summer of 2004, Katie was arrested for drug-related crimes. She pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and was placed in a substance abuse treatment facility. A Department social worker learned where she was and immediately made contact with her.
On Katie’s release from the facility in October 2004, the Department arranged for supervised visitation every other week. The hearing on the State’s petition to terminate her parental rights was held in December 2004.
At the time of the hearing, Katie had yet to complete a mental health evaluation required by the Department and had only belatedly taken advantage of supervised visitation. The Department’s social worker supported terminating Katie’s parental rights, stating “I need to see some follow-through. Katie has taken off, has not made herself available. We have not been able to move forward on any of the expectations in [X.B.’s] lifetime.” While the child’s guardian ad litem leaned toward the creation of a guardianship rather than termination, he admitted X.B. could not be returned to his mother’s care and he acknowledged Katie’s six-year history of intravenous drug use was a good indicator of future behavior.
We agree with the juvenile court that X.B. could not be returned to his mother’s care. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4); 232.116(1)(e)(3) (2003). In reaching this conclusion, we have considered Katie’s testimony that she had not used illegal substances for five months. She stated,
I’m trying to change. I’m not doing the drugs I was. I’m not doing any drugs. I’m seeking support — More support like outside of my home from AA and NA. I’m trying to comply with everything, and I just feel better about myself now than what I did last year.
While heartfelt, Katie’s interest in sobriety came more than nine months after the child’s removal from her care. Similarly, her renewed interest in her son came too late, as the statutory time frame for pre-termination removal expired almost four months earlier. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(3) (requiring removal from physical custody of parent “for at least six months of the last twelve months”).
We also conclude the Department made reasonable efforts to reunify X.B. with his mother. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000). From the beginning, a Department social worker arranged for services that could have created and enhanced a bond between mother and child. With the exception of a six week period during which visitation could not be implemented due to transportation issues, the Department was not to blame for the failure of these bonding efforts. Through most of the child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings, Katie admitted she was more concerned with feeding her drug habit than with participating in reunification services.
Finally, we agree with the juvenile court that termination was in X.B’s best interests. X.B. spent most of his young life in the care of his paternal grandmother. Accepting Katie’s testimony that she had maintained sobriety for several months, she was still in no position to assume full-time, unsupervised care of this toddler.
We affirm the termination of Katie’s parental rights to X.B.
AFFIRMED.
Huitink, J., concurs; Sackett, C.J., concurs specially without opinion.