No. 4-547 / 04-0645.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
August 26, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karla J. Fultz, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to two of her children. AFFIRMED.
Edward Bull of the Bull Law Office, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jon Anderson, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Kathryn Miller, Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ.
HECHT, J.
Dorothy R. is the mother of Kitana C., born December 10, 1997, and Marquesha B., born September 26, 2002. The children first came to the attention of authorities when Marquesha tested positive for the presence of cocaine at birth. Dorothy later admitted to having used cocaine on the day before the birth, and the children were placed in foster care. On November 15, 2002, the juvenile court adjudicated the children as in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2001). After a subsequent permanency hearing, the court ordered the county attorney’s office to file a termination petition with regard to Kitana, Marquesha, and their parents.[1]
Following the hearing on that petition,[2] the court terminated Dorothy’s parental rights to the children pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (f), (h), and (l) (2003). Dorothy appeals.
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 proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995).
On appeal, Dorothy maintains the State has not proved she received services to correct the circumstances that led to adjudication, that the provisions under which her rights were terminated were proved by clear and convincing evidence, or that termination was in the children’s best interests.
We first conclude the juvenile court correctly found that despite the variety of services offered to Dorothy, the circumstances which led to adjudication continued to exist at the time of the termination hearing. Of particular concern to the Department of Human Services (DHS) were, among other issues, Dorothy’s drug usage, her lack of parenting skills, and her employment and housing situations. Appropriate services were offered to correct these perceived problems, including foster care, supervised visitations, in-home family centered services, psychosocial evaluations, parenting skills training, urinalyses, substance abuse treatment, and individual therapy. Dorothy was unsuccessfully discharged from two treatment programs. In addition, according to the DHS’s “Report to the Court,” Dorothy tested positive for cocaine in her last three UA’s prior to the termination hearing. Clear and convincing evidence establishes her drug problem remains an impediment to reunification.
Moreover, we conclude the court properly terminated Dorothy’s rights under section 232.116(1)(f) (child four or older, CINA, removed from home twelve of last eighteen months, and cannot be returned home). In granting the petition to terminate Dorothy’s parental rights, the district court found:
The mother did not cooperate fully with services. Those services she received she did not fully utilize. [Dorothy] has not progressed to supervised visits. The parents’ skill trainer says she lacks essential skills to parent. She has been inconsistent in her UA drops and dropped positive for cocaine one week before the termination hearing. She denied she used illegal substances except one time just before the birth of Marquesha. She has not completed substance abuse treatment and has been unsuccessfully discharged from treatment on two occasions. . . . [Dorothy] still has no employment although she has a three bedroom at Oakridge for $37 per month. She has no furniture for the children.
Based on our de novo review of the record, we conclude the court’s findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence and justify its determination to terminate Dorothy’s parental rights.
Even if the statutory requirements for termination are met, the decision to terminate must still be in the best interest of the children. In re N.H., 383 N.W.2d 570, 574 (Iowa 1986). Dorothy maintains the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the best interests of Kitana and Marquesha. We disagree. Dorothy’s serious unresolved drug problem has clearly impacted the well-being of her children. Despite the knowledge she would have to establish a drug-free lifestyle and successfully complete treatment to preserve her parental rights, Dorothy was largely non-compliant, and was unsuccessfully discharged from treatment on two occasions. Termination is in the best interests of Kitana and Marquesha, and we therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.