Opinion ID: 1308939
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Time for Rehabilitation.

Text: Section 232.116(1)(f)(4) requires proof that an additional period of rehabilitation would not correct the situation. Upon our de novo review of the record, we find clear and convincing evidence that additional rehabilitation will not allow E.B.L. and H.B.L. to be returned to the custody of their mother. The legislature has determined the time period for rehabilitation of the parent. Iowa Code § 232.104. The period must be reasonably limited because patience on behalf of the parent can quickly translate into intolerable hardship for the children. In re R.J., 436 N.W.2d 630, 636 (Iowa 1989). The crucial days of childhood cannot be suspended while parents experiment with ways to face up to their own problems. In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Iowa 1987). We have been emphatic that after the statutory limit of twelve months, the case must be reviewed with a sense of urgency. In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 1990). While there is a parental interest in the integrity of the family unit, the parental interest is not absolute. In re I.L.G.R., 433 N.W.2d at 689. We cannot preserve in law this relationship which no longer exists in fact, with E.B.L. and H.B.L. committed indefinitely to the parentless limbo of foster care. See In re D.J.R., 454 N.W.2d 838, 845 (Iowa 1990). E.B.L. and H.B.L. were removed from their mother's custody in 1988. Efforts at reunification have continued unsuccessfully for four years. These children do not wish to visit their mother, let alone live with her. More time in foster care awaiting the possibility of unwanted reunification, however unlikely, is not in the best interests of these children. Clearly, E.B.L.'s and H.B.L.'s most pressing needs at this juncture are permanency, emotional stability and to attach as part of a family, not additional rehabilitation. See Iowa Code § 232.104.