Opinion
No. 2-409 / 02-0490.
Filed May 15, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, ARLEN L. VAN ZEE, Juvenile Judge.
Mother appeals an order terminating her parental rights to her two sons. AFFIRMED.
Kenneth Schoenauer of Kenneth Schoenauer, P.C., Clinton, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, M. Elise Pippin, Assistant Attorney General, Mike L. Wolf, County Attorney, and Jayme Kirsch, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
J. David Zimmerman, Clinton, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and MAHAN and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Tanya N. is the mother of Brian N., born April 30, 1994, and William N., born July 14, 1995. In October of 1999, there was a founded abuse report concerning Brian and William due to denial of critical care and lack of supervision by Tanya. Again in March of 2000 there was another founded abuse report for denial of critical care. In February of 2001, Tanya left Brian and William in the care of their father, Barry N., and moved to Wisconsin to live with her boyfriend. In May, Barry felt he could no longer care for the children and placed them in foster care.
On May 10, 2001, the State filed a petition alleging the children to be in need of assistance (CINA) and the court later adjudicated them pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(b) (2001). On January 4, 2002, the State filed a petition to terminate Tanya's parental rights. Following a hearing, the court terminated Tanya's parental rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(b). Tanya appeals this order. We review this matter de novo. In re A.B., 554 N.W.2d 291, 293 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996).
Section 232.116(1)(b) provides the court the authority to terminate parental rights if it finds there is clear and convincing evidence that the child has been abandoned or deserted. Abandonment is characterized as a giving up of parental rights and responsibilities accompanied by an intent to forego them. In re D.M., 516 N.W.2d 888, 891 (Iowa 1994). Two elements are involved in this characterization: the giving up of parental rights and responsibilities, which refers to conduct, and the intent element, which refers to the accompanying state of mind. Id. The concept requires affirmative parenting to the extent it is practical and feasible in the circumstances. Id. We conclude the court properly found Tanya voluntarily abandoned the children and that termination was therefore warranted.
In February of 2001, Tanya voluntarily left Brian and William with their father and moved to Wisconsin to live with her boyfriend. She failed to attend a July 3, 2001, hearing on the State's CINA petition. Shortly thereafter, she returned to Iowa and attended nine supervised visits between August and October. During this time, however, she also declined the opportunity for more visits. In late October she informed her visit supervisor she was moving, but refused to tell her where or provide a phone number. At least two social workers warned her that visitation would be difficult unless she remained in Iowa and informed her leaving would seriously harm her chances to ever regain custody of the children. Still, she willingly left and moved in with a new boyfriend in Arkansas. She did not contact the Department of Human Services again until January 11, 2002, seven days after the State had filed its termination petition. Although the length of Tanya's absence is not determinative, she cannot simply disappear and reappear in her children's lives on a whim. See In re R.L.F., 437 N.W.2d 599, 601 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989) (noting abandonment does not require the relinquishment to be over any particular period of time). Serious consequences must attach to such a choice. She was made aware of the possible consequences when she chose to leave. We conclude the record fully bears out the court's finding that Tanya abandoned Brian and William.
We also reject Tanya's contention termination of her parental rights was not in the best interests of the children. Tanya has provided the children virtually no financial or emotional support and has otherwise shown little interest in them. She clearly places her boyfriends in a position of more importance in her life than her children. She has not offered Brian and William any sort of stable environment, having moved at least six times between February of 2001 and the date of the termination. Further, Tanya failed to complete the requirements of her case permanency plan. Nothing indicates to us Tanya is capable of or willing to accept the responsibility of parenting these two children. Termination was clearly in the best interests of Brian and William, and we therefore affirm. AFFIRMED.