Opinion
No. 3-467 / 03-0771
Filed July 10, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Richard B. Clogg, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Kevin Hobbs of Harding, Harding, Griffin Hobbs, Des Moines, for appellant-father.
Michael H. Said, Des Moines, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, Gary Kendall, County Attorney, and Jane Orlanes, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Yvonne Naanep, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Brenda H. appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her daughter, Samantha, born September 16, 1998. She contends the grounds for termination were not met by clear and convincing evidence. She also claims termination is not in her daughter's best interests and suggests the juvenile court should have granted her additional time to work toward reunification. We affirm.
Samantha came to the juvenile court's attention on February 27, 2002, after she and her half-brother, Seth, sustained injuries from physical abuse. Emergency room personnel discovered Seth had an open skull fracture, two broken tibias, seven broken ribs in various stages of healing, and some bruising. Samantha had a large bruise on her face, a hand-slap bruise on her thigh, and several ear-pinch bruises. The children were ordered removed from their mother's care and were adjudicated in need of assistance on March 28, 2002. At the time of the adjudication hearing, Samantha's father, Chad, was in prison in Wisconsin, and Brenda was living with her boyfriend. Samantha has been in foster placement since February 27, 2002, with no trial periods in either parent's home.
In November 2002 the court terminated Brenda's parental rights to Samantha's brother. The State petitioned to terminate Brenda and Chad's parental rights to Samantha in February 2003. On April 18, 2003, the court terminated Brenda's parental rights to Samantha under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) (child in need of assistance for abuse and circumstances continue despite receipt of services), 232.116(1)(f) (child four or older, in need of assistance, removed from home for twelve of last eighteen months, and cannot be returned home), 232.116(1)(g) (child in need of assistance, parent's rights to another child were terminated, and parent does not respond to services), and 232.116(1)(i) (child meets definition of child in need of assistance, child was in imminent danger, and services would not correct conditions) (2003). Chad's parental rights were also terminated. Brenda and Chad appealed. Chad's appeal has been dismissed.
Formerly Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(c), (d), (e), and (f) (2001).
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 child. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
Brenda first contends the statutory grounds for termination have not been met. In order to terminate a parent's rights under section 232.116(1)(d), the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) a child or her sibling has been adjudicated in need of assistance based on physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect, and (2) that the circumstances continue to exist despite the receipt of services. On our de novo review of the record, we conclude the juvenile court properly terminated Brenda's rights under this section.
In March 2002 Brenda stipulated that Seth and Samantha were in need of assistance. Brenda agreed Samantha was in imminent danger of physical abuse or neglect and likely to suffer harmful effects from a lack of supervision as alleged in the petition. After adjudication, Brenda participated in services but continued to deny any involvement in the children's injuries. She also continued to deny that her boyfriend injured the children, even though he was their only other caretaker at the time they were injured. Despite the circumstances surrounding the children's injuries, Brenda continues to reside with her boyfriend. Before parents can begin the process of acquiring proper parenting skills and mending broken relationships with their children, past shortcomings must be acknowledged. See In re K.M.R., 455 N.W.2d 690, 691 (Iowa Ct.App. 1990).
Brenda acknowledges the grave harm inflicted on her children, but fails to take responsibility for the abuse or neglect of care that occurred. Clearly, the circumstances leading to the initial adjudication have not been rectified despite the receipt of services. Because we find the grounds for termination under section 232.116(1)(d) have been proven, we need not consider the other grounds upon which Brenda's parental rights were terminated. In re A.J., 553 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996) (stating we only need to find grounds to terminate parental rights under one of the sections cited by the juvenile court in order to affirm).
Brenda also asserts that termination is not in Samantha's best interests. We disagree. We recognize the bond Brenda shares with Samantha but conclude termination provides the best chance for the safe, healthy, and stable environment Samantha deserves. Samantha should not have to wait any longer for Brenda to learn how to protect her from abuse.
In her final argument, Brenda suggests the court erred in not granting her additional time for reunification. The record reflects Brenda has, for the most part, complied with services-she has attended therapy and even voluntarily attended parenting classes. However, despite these services, Brenda continues to deny responsibility for Samantha's abuse. This is not the first time Samantha has been abused. A previous child abuse investigation in Wisconsin found that Brenda's then boyfriend had physically abused Samantha. At that time, Brenda admitted she should not have allowed her boyfriend to move in with her or care for her child because she had not known him very long. We gain insight into Samantha's prospects by reviewing the evidence of Brenda's past performance for it may be indicative of her future capabilities. See In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). Nothing in the record suggests additional time and services would correct the circumstances leading to Samantha's adjudication and removal.
We conclude clear and convincing evidence supports termination of Brenda's parental rights. We agree with the juvenile court's conclusion that termination of Brenda's parental rights is in Samantha's best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the juvenile court.