Opinion
No. 2-537 / 02-0125.
Filed July 3, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, SUSAN FLAHERTY, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother and father appeal from a permanency order. AFFIRMED.
Karla M. Wolff, Cedar Rapids, for appellant-mother.
David Mullin and Anne M. Laverty of Mullin Laverty, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant-father of J.J.
Chrystal Usher, Cedar Rapids, for minor child, T.A.J.
Barbara Connolly, Cedar Rapids, for minor children A.J., S.J., and J.J.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, M. Elise Pippin, Assistant Attorney General, Denver D. Dillard, County Attorney, and Lance Heeren, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Considered by MAHAN, P.J., and ZIMMER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Michelle is the mother of four children and Patrick is the father of one of the children. The children are now seventeen, fifteen, thirteen, and eleven years old. Both parents appeal from the juvenile court's entry of a permanency order concerning the children. They contend the juvenile court erred in entering the order because adequate services were not provided, the children can be returned home, and the permanency order is not in the best interests of the children. We review these claims de novo. In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001).
In order to enter a permanency order, the court must find convincing evidence that termination is not in the best interest of the child, services were offered to correct the situation leading to the child's removal from the home, and the child cannot be returned home. Iowa Code § 232.104(3) (2001). The parents contend convincing evidence does not support the latter two requirements.
Upon de novo review, we find services have been offered to the parents to correct the situation that led to the removal of the children. The children were removed from Michelle's care due to sexual abuse, substance abuse, unsanitary housing conditions, and the parents' inability to protect the children. Michelle was ordered to complete counseling and treatment for sexual abuse and substance abuse. However, Michelle has refused services, been uncooperative, and failed to make meaningful change. Patrick has failed to complete sexual offender treatment and has consistently violated a no contact order regarding Michelle's daughters. Although services have been offered, Michelle and Patrick have neglected to fully utilize them.
Additionally, we find the evidence illustrates the children cannot be returned to Michelle's home. The problems leading to the children's removal still exist. While the Department of Human Services (DHS) has been involved with this family since 1996, the parents have shown an inability to improve their parenting skills. Furthermore, Michelle has indicated that she intends to revert to her former behavior as soon as DHS is out of her life. Insight into a child's future can be gleaned from the parent's past performance. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Iowa 2000). Convincing evidence demonstrates the children cannot be returned home. For the same reasons, we find entry of the permanency order to be in the children's best interest. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.