No. 4-436 / 04-0749.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
July 14, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Odell G. McGhee II, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her four children. AFFIRMED.
Nancy Pietz, Des Moines, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jennifer Galloway, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Kayla Stratton, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for the children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Hecht and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
VOGEL, P.J.
Jeannie is the mother of Shelby, born February 24, 1994; Anthony, born June 22, 1997; Mashala, born December 29, 1998; and Dominic, born December 11, 2002. The children were removed from Jeannie’s custody on December 19, 2002, after Dominic tested positive for methamphetamines and THC at birth. They were subsequently adjudicated in need of assistance under sections 232.2(6)(c)(2), (n), and (o) (2003) on January 21, 2003. The Department of Human Services eventually transferred the children’s custody to their paternal grandmother and step-grandfather. On January 22, 2004, the State filed a petition to terminate Jeannie’s parental rights. Following a hearing, the court terminated her rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (f), (h), and (l).[1] Jeannie appeals this order.
We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824
(Iowa 1991). Our primary concern is the best interests of the children. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). While the district court terminated the parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we will affirm if at least one ground has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995).
On appeal, Jeannie maintains the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence to support the termination on any of the grounds cited by the district court. In addition, she contends termination was improper because a relative held custody of the children. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(a) (providing a discretionary alternative to termination when a relative has custody of the children).
Upon our de novo review of the record, we conclude clear and convincing evidence supports termination under sections 232.116(1)(f) (child is four or older, has been adjudicated in need of assistance, has been removed for at least twelve months, and cannot be returned to parent’s custody) and (h) (child three or younger, has been adjudicated, has been removed for six months, and cannot be returned). As noted, the children were removed from Jeannie’s custody when Dominic tested positive for drugs at birth. Jeannie’s drug use continued to be an obstacle to regaining custody of her children. In spite of being required to regularly do so, Jeannie frequently failed to provide urinalyses during the course of these proceedings. Although Jeannie did complete one treatment program, she was later discharged from the Powell Continuing Care Group and received reports from her counselor that she had an “inability to follow through,” had made minimal progress, and had “self-sabotaged.” In addition, she refused referrals to aftercare and co-dependency treatment.
The district court noted and the record supports that throughout this case Jeannie has made little progress in achieving stability in housing, relationships, or employment. At times, Jeannie has been homeless, lived without utilities, and relied on relatives for help. Jeannie’s instability has had significant negative consequences on the children, most significantly Anthony and Shelby. Anthony, who reported that his parents fight and do drugs together, has developed ADHD as well as anger and aggressiveness issues. Shelby’s therapist testified that her parents’ difficulties have affected Shelby emotionally and temperamentally, as evidenced in such behaviors as wetting and soiling. Quite obviously Jeannie’s drug use has had a direct impact on Dominic, as he tested positive for the presence of drugs at birth. In fact, Jeannie admitted she used marijuana the very week he was born.
Jeannie points out that Shelby’s therapist testified Shelby wants to be returned to her mother and that the in-home worker testified that Jeannie was bonded with the children and had good parenting skills. However, while these observations may be true, it is also true that both the therapist and in-home worker nonetheless recommended that Jeannie’s parental rights be terminated.
Accordingly, we conclude the district court correctly determined there is clear and convincing evidence the children cannot be returned to Jeannie’s custody. Iowa Code §§ 232.116(1)(f)(4), (h)(4). Despite the offer and receipt of numerous services throughout this case history, Jeannie simply has not progressed to a state of stability, maturity, and sobriety sufficient to regain custody of the children. See In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 1990) (“Children simply cannot wait for responsible parenting.”). We find it significant that Jeannie has not even progressed enough to begin unsupervised visits with the children.
Moreover, we conclude termination was appropriate despite the children’s placement with relatives. It appears that the children have done very well in their placement with their paternal grandmother who, along with her husband, is willing to adopt the children. These children deserve permanency and consistency, and will be provided such in the custody of their grandmother. We find no compelling reason to leave them in a parentless limbo while Jeannie comes to terms with her own problems.
AFFIRMED.