Opinion
No. 3-576 / 03-1093
Filed August 13, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Arlen Van Zee, District Associate Judge.
Parents appeal termination of their parental rights to two of their children. AFFIRMED.
J. David Zimmerman, Clinton, for appellants.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Mike L. Wolf, County Attorney, and Jayme Kirsch, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Lawrence Schultz, Dewitt, for children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, JJ.
Thomas and Julie are the parents of Laura, age 11, and Mark, age 5. Thomas and Julie have five other children not directly involved in this appeal: Michael, age 20, Thomas Jr., age 17, Jennifer, age 15, Randy, age 14, and James, age 13. The family has been involved with the Department of Human Services (DHS) since 1986. The current involvement was initiated in March 2001 after Thomas struck Thomas Jr., resulting in a bloody nose, and James was found sleeping outside after being missing for twenty hours. Both were removed from the home. On July 6, 2001, the six youngest children were adjudicated in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(b) (2001) (parent has physically abused or neglected child, or is imminently likely to do so). The CINA dispositional order continued placement of Jennifer, Randy, Laura, and Mark in the care and custody of their parents. In January 2002, the State filed a motion to modify the disposition to remove the remaining children from their parents' care. On March 4, 2002, the court granted the motion. As of the termination hearing, Randy was the only child to be returned to his parents' custody. On April 2, 2003, the State filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Thomas and Julie to their youngest children, Laura and Mark. Following a hearing on May 13, 2003, the court terminated Thomas and Julie's parental rights in a June 9, 2003, order pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2003) (child is four or older, adjudicated CINA, removed from home for 12 of last 18 months, and child cannot be returned home). Thomas and Julie appeal.
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).
On appeal, Thomas and Julie claim the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Laura and Mark could not be safely returned to their care. Thomas and Julie have been receiving services periodically from DHS since 1986. During the recent involvement, the couple has been offered the following services: Visiting Nurses Association services, supervised visits, marriage counseling, psychological evaluations, parenting skill development, charts and schedules for their children and them to follow, budgeting, meal planning, medication management, MR waiver services, case management services, Area Education Agency, transportation, and individual counseling. Julie has cooperated to some degree with services and has lately shown some improvement in recognizing the needs of her children. Thomas has not been responsive to the services or in recognizing the many needs of his children. Thomas refused mental health counseling, medication management, case management, and only sporadically participated in marriage counseling. In her report, Kim Fish, a DHS social worker, stated that "due to Thomas's influence and Julie's dependence on him, she is unable to be fully invested in parenting due to his constant paranoia and delusional thinking." In the presence of the children, Thomas regularly accused Julie of cheating on him and suggested the children may not be his. Fish testified that Laura is mildly mentally retarded and requires a higher level of supervision than what her parents have been able to either recognize or provide. Thomas and Julie, themselves function at a lower level and continue to have difficulty providing care, including basic hygiene, as well as supervising their children. "A parent's mental disability, while not alone sufficient to terminate parental rights, can be a contributing factor to the parent's inability to perform essential parenting functions, and termination can be appropriate where a parent lacks the capacity to meet a child's present and future needs." In re T.T., 541 N.W.2d 552, 556 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995) (citing In re A.M.S. 419 N.W.2d 723, 733 (Iowa 1988)). In spite of these shortcomings, we recognize the love both parents have for their children. However, the best interests of the children led the district court to terminate rights and convinces us to affirm that decision. The unfortunate proof is also in the parent's history. Thomas and Julie's older children all suffered under their care and with the exception of one child, are all out of the parental home. See id. ("A parent's past performance may be indicative of the quality of future care the parent is capable of providing.") (citing In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 493-94 (Iowa 1990)). Laura and Mark deserve to have a chance to develop normally in homes that can meet their special needs. See In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997) (holding that at some point the rights and needs of children rise above that of the parents'). For the foregoing reasons, we conclude there was clear and convincing evidence that Laura and Mark could not be safely returned to their parents' custody. Therefore, the termination of Thomas and Julie's parental rights to Laura and Mark is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.