IN THE INTEREST OF C.D., 699 N.W.2d 686 (Iowa App. 2005)

No. 5-407 / 05-0522Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed May 25, 2005

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Jeffrey L. Harris, District Associate Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. AFFIRMED.

Tammy L. Banning, Waterloo, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Steven Halbach, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.

Sharon Briner, Waterloo, guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.

ZIMMER, J.

Pamela D. appeals from a juvenile court order which terminated her parental rights to her son. Upon our de novo review, we affirm the juvenile court.

I. Background Facts Proceedings
Pamela D. is the mother and Rodney D. is the father of Curtis D., born May 15, 1999. Curtis was removed from Pamela’s care in March 2004 because of concerns of improper supervision due to his mother’s abuse of controlled substances and her mental health issues. Prior to her son’s removal, Pamela had been receiving services from the Department of Human Services on a voluntary basis.

The juvenile court adjudicated Curtis as a child in need of assistance (CINA) on May 18, 2004. Pamela continued to use drugs during the CINA proceedings. She was arrested and jailed on drug charges during October 2004. On February 14, 2005, the State filed a petition to terminate Pamela and Rodney’s parental rights. Following a termination hearing, the juvenile court entered an order on March 20, 2005, terminating the parental rights of the mother and father. Only Pamela has pursued an appeal.[1]

II. Scope of Review
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1993). 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 children. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).

III. Discussion
On appeal, Pamela claims: (1) the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, (2) termination is not in her son’s best interests because of the parent-child bond, (3) the juvenile court should have deferred its termination decision to determine whether placement with a relative was a viable option, and (4) the termination order was not consistent with Iowa Code section 232.117(2) (2003). We will address each of her arguments in turn.

The juvenile court terminated Pamela’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b) (abandonment), (e) (child CINA, removed for six months and parent has not maintained meaningful contact, (f) (child is four or older, CINA, removed from home for twelve of the last eighteen months and cannot be returned home) and section 232.116(1)(l) (child CINA, parent has a chronic substance abuse problem, and children cannot be returned home within a reasonable time).

Pamela has a lengthy history of violating the law and abusing controlled substances. She continued to abuse controlled substances during the CINA proceedings and she did not complete a substance abuse program. She was arrested in October 2004 and jailed on serious drug charges. Prior to her incarceration, Pamela’s contact with her son was sporadic. Pamela has had no contact with her son since she was jailed. It is apparent that Pamela has a severe, chronic substance abuse problem which dates back to her childhood. Pamela was incarcerated when the termination hearing was held and was at high risk of being sent to prison. Curtis clearly could not be safely returned to his mother’s care at the time of the termination hearing or at any point in the foreseeable future. We conclude that all of the grounds for termination relied on by the juvenile court are amply supported by the evidence.

Even if the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights are met, the decision to terminate must be in the child’s best interests. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). Pamela contends her parental rights should not have been terminated because of the close bond she shares with her son. Section 232.116(3)(c) provides that a strong bond between a parent and a child is a special circumstance which can mitigate against termination of parental rights. However, the bond is merely a factor to consider, not an overriding consideration. In the Interest of N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341-42 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). The juvenile court acknowledged the bond between Pamela and her child, but concluded that termination was in the best interests of the child because of Pamela’s persistent and unresolved drug problem, her present and probable future confinement, and her ongoing mental health issues. We conclude the court properly concluded that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in her son’s best interests.

Pamela next contends the juvenile court erred in failing to defer its decision to terminate so that additional home studies regarding a possible relative placement could have been explored. One of Pamela’s caseworkers testified that she would still recommend termination of Pamela’s parental rights even with a relative placement. The caseworker wanted any relatives under consideration to be able to adopt. We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to defer its decision to terminate Pamela’s parental rights.

In her final assignment of error, Pamela contends the order terminating her parental rights is inconsistent with section 232.117(2). This section provides that the juvenile court shall dismiss the termination petition if it concludes that facts sufficient to terminate parental rights have not been established by clear and convincing evidence. We have already concluded that the juvenile court’s termination order is supported by sufficient evidence. Accordingly, we reject this assignment of error.

AFFIRMED.