Opinion
No. 2-972 / 02-1715.
Filed December 11, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cass County, MARK EVELOFF, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to four of her children. One child appeals the dismissal of the petition to terminate the parent-child relationship as to her. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
William Early of Kohorst, Early, Gross Louis, Harlan, for appellant mother.
Andrew Knuth of Rutherford, Trewet, Knuth, Atlantic, for father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and James Barry, County Attorney, for appellee State.
Karen Mainlander of Mainlander law office, Anita, guardian ad litem for the minor children.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
The juvenile court terminated parental rights to four of the parents' six children. The mother appeals, contending that although the State proved the grounds for termination under Iowa Code sections 232.166(1)(c), (e), (h), and (l) (Supp. 2001), termination is not in the best interest of the children. One of the children whose relationship with her parents' was not terminated appeals. She contends termination of parental rights is in her best interests. We review these claims de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991).
We find termination of the mother's parental rights is in the children's best interest. The mother was in prison for a sexual abuse conviction at the time of trial and will not be released until at least March 2003. The problems that led to the children's CINA adjudication will still exist even if the mother is released from prison. The mother has consistently failed to take responsibility for her actions. Up until her incarceration, the mother continued to use drugs and engage in inappropriate relationships with men. She is imprisoned for sexually abusing a fifteen-year-old boy. The future can be gleaned by the mother's past performance. See In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Iowa 2000). Although the mother argues the children's grandmother will be present in the home to assist her in parenting the children, we note the grandmother has always been present in the home. Her presence did not prevent the abuse and neglect of the children and would probably not prevent it in the future. The grandmother's perception of the mother's parenting abilities is also questionable as the grandmother claims the mother has always been there for her children, a fact which is sadly untrue. We affirm the juvenile court's order terminating parental rights to the four youngest children.
The juvenile court found that, although the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights to the eldest children had been met, termination was not in their best interest. The oldest daughter, Jenny, sixteen, appeals, contending termination is in her best interest for the same reasons it is in the best interest of her younger siblings. The court found termination was not in Jenny's best interest because she was over sixteen years old and would not be adopted. Although the court cited the testimony of the DHS worker to support this contention, our review of the termination hearing transcript does not reveal any such testimony. While it may well be more difficult to find an adoptive home for children over the age of sixteen, such difficulty is not a sufficient reason for refusal to terminate the parent-child relationship. See In re S.O., 483 N.W.2d 602, 604 (Iowa 1992); In re D.P., 465 N.W.2d 313, 316 (Iowa Ct.App. 1990). The legislature has not limited the termination of parental rights to children under the age of sixteen, but has defined a "child" as a person less than eighteen years of age. See Iowa Code § 232.2.
The juvenile court also found that Jenny has never asked for the parent-child relationship to be terminated. However, Jenny has never objected to the termination of the parent-child relationship. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(b) (stating the court need not terminate the parent-child relationship if the child is over ten and objects to the termination). We find that it is in her best interest to do so and reverse the portion of the juvenile court's order dismissing the petition to terminate the parental rights of the mother and father to Jenny. The case is remanded for entry of an order terminating parental rights between the parents and Jenny.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
MILLER, J., concurs; SACKETT, C.J., concurs specially.
I concur with the majority in all respects. I too would affirm the termination of the parental rights of the four children and order termination of Jenny's parental rights. I find this result to be the better of available alternatives for these children. I cannot, however, as does the majority, find this result is necessarily in the children's best interest. Termination of the parental rights of even the most grievous parents does not come without injury to the child. Nor does termination assure the child will live happily ever after. As one commentator suggests, if we were to consider a child's best interest, only the most worthy could parent.