Opinion
No. 2-728 / 01-1876
Filed October 16, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, James A. Weaver, District Associate Judge.
The father appeals an order of the juvenile court terminating the parental rights to two children. AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey Johnson, Muscatine, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Mary Pippin, Assistant Attorney General, Richard R. Phillips, County Attorney, and Patricia Rolfstad, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Neva Rettig-Baker, Muscatine, for minor child.
Considered by Habhab, Harris, and Brown, S.J.
Senior judges assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2001).
This is an appeal from an order of the juvenile court terminating the parental rights of the parents of two children, N.G. (born August 28, 1997) and M.G. (born November 2, 1998). The father, K.G., appeals. The mother does not appeal, and her parental rights are not at issue in this appeal. We affirm.
Petitions to terminate parental rights were filed on August 20, 2001, requesting termination of the parent-child relationship regarding N.G. pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(f) and 232.116(1)(l) (Supp. 2001), and regarding M.G. pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(h) and 232.116(1)(l). On September 28, 2001, the county attorney's office filed a motion to suspend visitation alleging that the parents had not been consistent with visitation and the children were experiencing problems following visits.
In its order terminating parental rights, the court cites to the previous code numbers which were in effect prior to the amendment of section 232.116(1) on April 24, 2001. We will use the current form of the section.
Hearings on the motion to suspend visitation and the petitions to terminate parental rights were held. Neither parent appeared personally. The juvenile court filed an order terminating parental rights. K.G.'s parental rights were terminated as to N.G. pursuant to section 232.116(1)(f) and as to M.G. pursuant to section 232.116(1)(l).
K.G. filed a motion to reopen record alleging that his failure to appear was because he believed the case had been continued. A hearing on that motion was held. The juvenile court found that K.G. should be allowed to cite specific examples of conduct to refute the findings of the termination order. K.G. filed an offer of proof. On the same date, the juvenile court entered a ruling finding that the matters addressed in the offer of proof would not affect its decision.
I. The Department of Human Services (DHS) first became involved with the family shortly after N.G. was born. A worker from DHS met with the family weekly. In 1998, there was a confirmed report for failure to provide adequate shelter for N.G. His mother and father were the perpetrators. In May 1999, there was a founded report for failure to provide proper supervision to the children with both parents as perpetrators.
M.G. was left unsupervised on the couch and continued to use an unstable bassinet. N.G. likewise was allowed to be unsupervised and flooded the apartment. The DHS received another report in June of 1999 that N.G. again flooded the apartment while his parent slept. The report of denial of critical care, failure to provide proper supervision was founded and placed on the Central Child Abuse Registry.
In July of 1999, the county attorney's office filed a child in need of assistance (CINA) petition and the two children were adjudicated to be in need of assistance because of potential dangers in the home, inappropriate methods used to control their behavior, and the parents' failure to provide M.G. with appropriate medical care. Custody remained with the parents subject to compliance with the case plan.
The parents failed to comply with a majority of requirements of the case plan. The children were then ordered placed in foster care. The children were returned to their parents' care on April 27, 2000. About a month later, the children were again removed from the parents' care and placed in foster care. The last foster care placement was due to an incident in which M.G. was found wandering outside unattended. The court also noted the parents' failure to adequately monitor the children's blood for lead poisoning, failure to maintain adequate sanitation in the home, absence from school on the part of the older child, failure to participate in substance abuse aftercare, and a general lack of cooperation with DHS. Following the second placement of the children in foster care and leading up to the time of the termination hearing, DHS personnel noted no progress by the parents in cooperating with services.
II. Appellate review of proceedings to terminate a parent-child relationship is de novo. In re R.L.F., 437 N.W.2d 599, 600-01 (Iowa Ct.App. 1989). Weight is accorded to the fact-findings of the juvenile court, especially when considering the credibility of the witnesses the court has heard and observed first-hand, but we are not bound by them. Id. The primary concern is the best interests of the child. Id. The court looks to the child's long-range, as well as immediate, interests and considers what the future holds for the child if returned to his or her parents. Id. at 600-01. Insight for this determination can be gained from evidence of the parent's past performance, for that performance may be indicative of the quality of the future care the parent is capable of providing. Id. at 601.
K.G. admits that the statutory requirements for termination were met. He argues, however, that termination is not in the best interest of the children. Thus even though we conclude that all of the criteria for termination of parental rights have been satisfied, we must still make a determination as to whether termination would be in the child's best interest. In re T.R., 483 N.W.2d 334, 337 (Iowa Ct.App. 1992). Our primary concern in termination cases is the best interest of the child. R.L.F., 437 N.W.2d at 600. There need not be termination if there is clear and convincing evidence that such action would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship. Iowa Code§ 232.116(3)(c).
III. From our de novo review of the record, we conclude that it is in the best interests of the two children that the parental rights of K.G. be terminated. The DHS has been involved with the family for over four years. HOPES began providing services in 1997. Despite all of the services extended, there were three founded child abuse reports before a CINA petition was filed.
Family-centered services were provided and these parents were given every opportunity to comply with the case plan. After six months, the children were removed. The court later returned the children to their home. But again the children were unsupervised. Factually, it appears that M.G. was found unsupervised at a busy street corner. Again, removal took place.
Regrettably K.G. has not developed the parenting skills necessary to provide the children with a safe and nurturing home. He continues to have a substance abuse problem. For over four years, the children have been denied responsible parenting. It goes without saying that parenting cannot be turned off and on like a spigot. In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 422 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). It must be constant, responsible, and reliable. Id.
K.G. has a criminal history, including charges of third-degree burglary and driving while barred.
The juvenile court made extensive findings. From our de novo review, we agree with those findings. N.G. and M.G. have waited long enough for responsible parenting. It is in their best interests that K.G.'s parental rights be terminated.