No. 5-371 / 05-0414Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed May 11, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, William L. Thomas, Judge.
Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three children. AFFIRMED.
Cory Goldensoph, Cedar Rapids, for appellant-mother.
Annette Martin, Cedar Rapids, for appellee-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Rebecca Belcher, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Richard Mitvalsky of Gray, Stefani Mitvalsky, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
VOGEL, P.J.
S.S. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three children, asserting that given an additional six months she would be a fit mother. The district court terminated S.S.’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) (2003) (child CINA, child removed for six months, parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact with child), (f) (child four or older, child CINA, removed from home for twelve of last eighteen months, and child cannot be returned home), (h) (child is three or younger, child CINA, removed from home for six of last twelve months, and child cannot be returned home) and (l) (child CINA, parent has substance abuse problem, child cannot be returned within a reasonable time).
The children, ages nine, four, and two, were removed from S.S.’s care on October 9, 2003, and have remained in out-of-home placements ever since. Since the removal of her children, S.S. has been offered a plethora of services to help her overcome her difficulties with substance abuse, parenting skills, and criminal behavior so that the children may be returned to her care. Unfortunately, S.S. has made little, if any, progress and is currently incarcerated for yet more criminal acts. These barriers continue to stand in the way of S.S. being able to care for, protect, and nurture her children. Moreover, this past conduct is a reliable indicator of the quality of care S.S. would be capable of providing in the future. See In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 493
(Iowa 1990). Nothing in the record supports the notion that additional time would be of any benefit.
The legislature, through section 232.116, directs us that “[a]t some point, the rights and needs of the child[ren] rise above the rights and needs of the parent.” In Interest of J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). Moreover, courts must reasonably limit the time allowed parents to assume a position where they can care for their children as “patience with parents can soon translate into intolerable hardship for their children.”See In re A.Y.H., 508 N.W.2d 92, 96 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993). This is because “[t]he crucial days of childhood cannot be suspended while parents experiment with ways to face up to their own problems.” See In re D.A., 506 N.W.2d 478, 479 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993). The time allowed S.S. to face up to and resolve her numerous problems has come and gone. The children’s lives progress each day, and they are in need of permanency. Therefore, we affirm the termination of S.S.’s parental rights to her three children.
AFFIRMED.