Opinion
No. 2-336 / 01-1977.
Filed June 19, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, KIM M. RILEY, District Associate Judge.
Mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her daughter. AFFIRMED.
Kevin O'Hare and Reyne L. See of Johnson, Sudenga, Latham, Peglow O'Hare, P.L.C., Marshalltown, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, and Bradley J. Harris, Acting County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Mona Bowden, Iowa Falls, for minor child.
Considered by MAHAN, P.J., and ZIMMER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
A mother appeals a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her daughter. She contends the State did not provide clear and convincing evidence that her daughter could not be returned to her care at the time of the termination proceedings. She also contends termination of her parental rights is not in her daughter's best interests. We affirm the juvenile court's ruling terminating the mother's parental rights.
Shavonna, born February 5, 1999, is the biological daughter of Candace and Corey. When Shavonna was born, her mother was fifteen and her father was eighteen. Both had dropped out of high school. Candace cared for Shavonna until December 1999, when Shavonna was removed from her mother's custody based on allegations that Candace was not providing proper medical care and was feeding Shavonna bottles containing alcohol. Shavonna was placed in family foster care under the supervision of the Department of Human Services (the Department).
On January 19, 2000, Shavonna was adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) and her foster care placement was affirmed. In May 2000, Shavonna was transferred from foster care to the care of her paternal grandmother, Becky. Candace continued to have visitation privileges. She was informed that in order to regain custody of her daughter, she needed to establish a permanent residence, get a job, and participate in family centered services offered through the Department.
Based on Candace's apparent improvement, Shavonna was returned to her mother's care in November 2000. The reunification attempt was short-lived, lasting only ten days. Shavonna was returned to her grandmother's care after Candace failed to enroll her daughter in protective daycare, left Shavonna with unapproved caretakers, and was unavailable for her scheduled in-home sessions. Her caseworker also reported that Candace had moved and was living with friends, one of whom had "a history of physical abuse and/or perpetration of sexual abuse." In February 2001, during a visitation period, Candace absconded with Shavonna and fled to New Mexico. Mother and child were returned to Iowa, and Candace's visitation privileges were suspended.
On July 23, 2001, the State filed a petition to terminate Candace's parental rights. On December 4, 2001, following a hearing, Candace's parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2001) (child is three or younger, CINA, removed from home for six of last twelve months, and cannot be returned home).
The standard of review in termination cases is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; In re J.J.S., Jr., 628 N.W.2d 25, 28 (Iowa Ct.App. 2001).
We note the juvenile court terminated parental rights under section 232.116(1)(g) which was renumbered as 232.116(1)(h) in April 2001.
Candace claims the State failed to prove that Shavonna could not be returned to her care. At the time of the termination proceedings, Candace had recently given birth to a second daughter. She and her newborn were new residents at the House of Mercy. While we agree that Candace's steps toward providing for her new daughter are worthy of praise, there is no evidence that she is capable of providing the long-term stability that Shavonna deserves. In the past, Candace has proven to be unable or unwilling to care for her daughter on her own. She also has a long history of refusing to cooperate fully with services designed to help remedy the problems that led to Shavonna's removal. We conclude the State provided the juvenile court with clear and convincing evidence that Shavonna could not be returned to Candace's care at the time of the termination hearing. See In re A.Y.H., 508 N.W.2d 92, 96 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993) (court must reasonably limit time for parents to be in a position to assume care of children; patience with parents can soon translate into intolerable hardship for children). We find Candace's parental rights were properly terminated under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g).
Candace also claims that terminating her parental rights will not serve Shavonna's best interests. Even if the grounds for termination of parental rights are met, the decision to terminate must be in the best interests of the child. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). In assessing the best interests of the child, we must evaluate her long-range as well as immediate interests. In re K.F., 437 N.W.2d 559, 560 (Iowa 1989). We consider what the future likely holds for the child if returned to the parent. Id. We gain insight into the child's prospects by reviewing the evidence of the parent's past performance — for it may be indicative of the parent's future capabilities. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d at 400.
We find termination of Candace's parental rights to be in Shavonna's best interests. At the time of the termination hearing, Shavonna was two and a half years old. Aside from an unsuccessful attempt at reunification, Shavonna has been out of her mother's care for almost two years. The majority of Shavonna's life has been spent in the care of Becky, her paternal grandmother. Becky has indicated a willingness to continue to care for Shavonna, but has also expressed concern about Candace's involvement in the child's life. By all accounts, Shavonna is thriving in Becky's care. We agree with the trial court's determination that this arrangement serves Shavonna's best interests.
AFFIRMED.