In Interest of C.R.S., 3-317/03-0614.

• Decision Date: 29 May 2003
• Docket Number: No. 3-317/03-0614.,3-317/03-0614.
• Parties: IN THE INTEREST OF C.R.S., Minor child, C.M.S., Mother, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Court of Appeals

Page 1

IN THE INTEREST OF C.R.S., Minor child C.M.S., Mother, Appellant.

No. 3-317/03-0614.

Court of Appeals of Iowa.

Filed May 29, 2003.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, James A. Weaver, District Associate Judge.

A mother appeals the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights.

AFFIRMED.

Catherine Alexander of Zamora, Taylor, Clark, Alexander & Woods, Davenport, for appellant-mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, William Davis, County Attorney, and Gerda Lane, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.

James Clements, Davenport, guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vogel, JJ.

SACKETT, C.J.

Christine, the mother of Chrystal, who was born April 1, 2000, has filed a an appeal contending that a March 2003 order terminating her parental rights should be reversed. The father of the child is allegedly unknown; however, a putative father was identified and received notice of the proceedings but did not appear or contest the termination. We affirm.

We review the termination de novo. In re W.G., 349 N.W.2d 487, 491 (Iowa 1984), cert. denied sub nom.; J.G. v. Tauke, 469 U.S. 1222, 105 S. Ct. 1212, 84 L. Ed. 2d 353; In re the Miller Children, 228 N.W.2d 60, 63 (Iowa 1975). However, we give weight to the juvenile court's findings of fact, especially concerning the credibility of the witnesses. W.G., 349 N.W.2d at 491-92; In re C.W., 553 N.W. 2d 279, 281 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). The State has the burden of proving the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. See In re T.A.L., 505 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Iowa 1993); In re H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d 675, 677 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997).

Chrystal was found be to a child in need of assistance when she was six months old. Christine suffers from a chronic mental illness that made it difficult to care for her child. Chrystal was placed in a foster care home for a short period of time. However, almost immediately Christine's eight siblings became involved in the case and the child was placed in the home of one of Christine's younger sisters and her husband. The placement was very satisfactory. The child was immediately accepted by her aunt and uncle and their children and she has done well in their care. Christine remained in contact with Chrystal, satisfactorily exercised all visitations, and is welcomed as a visitor in her sister and brother-in law's home. Chrystal continues to reside in that home. Though efforts have been made, Christine's mental problems are not totally under control.

On October 30, 2002 the guardian ad litem filed a petition to terminate Christine's parental rights in accordance with the recommendation of the Department of Human Services. The Department pushed for termination, noting its intent was that Chrystal would be adopted by the aunt and uncle with whom she was living. In the order terminating Christine's parental rights the juvenile court appointed the aunt and uncle as Chrystal's guardians. Christine does not challenge the guardianship or the finding that the child cannot be returned to her at this time. Her challenge is that her parental rights should not have been terminated. The State argues for termination, advancing that Chrystal needs to identify with what they refer to as a "forever family"¹ whom she can count on to meet her needs and provide stability, and the only way this can occur is if Christine's parental rights are terminated.

Christine, because of her mental illness, is not able to give Chrystal the care she deserves. To the credit of Christine's supportive siblings Chrystal is well cared for and has remained in contact with her birth mother. Christine is treated as a guest and visiting...