Opinion ID: 2167768
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Determination of Reasonable Progress

Text: The issue of central importance is whether the evidence before us supports the conclusion that an order to the county attorney to file a petition to terminate parental rights was appropriate. The standard a court must satisfy in order to exercise this option is found in Iowa Code section 232.104(1)( c ). This section provides at the permanency hearing, the court shall also make a determination as to whether reasonable progress is being made in achieving the permanency goal and complying with the other provisions of that permanency plan. Iowa Code § 232.104(1)( c ) (emphasis added). All of the parties agree the evidence shows the mother was making reasonable progress toward reunification at the time of the permanency hearing. In this case, Sharquelle's parents have shown chronic issues of domestic violence. The mother has appeared, at times, disinterested in the process of reunification. She has had difficulty in appropriately disciplining Sharquelle. Though she was learning some new parenting techniques, DHS stated the mother was not using them in her interactions with Sharquelle. The mother moved to Illinois to be with her new boyfriend; she would not provide any information to DHS about her boyfriend. There was also positive evidence supporting reunification. At the time of the permanency hearing, the mother had had only five months to work on the goals of the case permanency plan. During that time, the mother's participation was not perfect, though DHS stated she continued to make progress. In June 2002, DHS stated the mother has been responsive to the parenting services although she feels that she does not need this type of education. At that time, the case permanency plan still indicated services would be provided to the mother focusing their efforts on reunification. Though the mother had moved to Illinois, she was maintaining contact with Sharquelle and DHS. She was participating in the Batterer's Education Program. The DHS case manager stated reunification between Sharquelle and her mother would be possible within three to four months. Before reunification would be possible, DHS stated the mother would need to accomplish several other things. She needed to stabilize her living arrangement. As of the permanency hearing, the mother stated she was moving to Illinois but yet she had not moved into the home where she said she would be. DHS also stated the mother must continue to comply with the parenting services. DHS recommended unsupervised time and possibly overnights with Sharquelle and her mother. Despite evidence to the contrary, the juvenile court stated, The Court can only conclude that [the mother's] efforts and attitude are marginal to say the least and only when it's a matter of her convenience. Now with her moving to Galesburg, this is one more hindrance to her resolving her problems and becoming an effective parent. Based upon her past actions and the fact that she can't even put forth effort in the face of a deadline, it is established that reasonable efforts at reunification have been made and failed. The Court feels that termination of parental rights is appropriate. Given the mother's prior record of inconsistent participation in services and seeming lack of interest in learning new parenting skills, it is easy to see the juvenile court's frustration in this case. However, the above evidence does not support a finding that the mother was not making reasonable progress toward achieving the goals of the permanency plan. Even though there is evidence supporting the juvenile court's action, under all of the facts and circumstances, we conclude the mother was making reasonable progress toward achieving the permanency goal pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.104(1)( c ). See In re C.G., 444 N.W.2d at 521 (juvenile court must determine whether there is a reasonable probability, if such evidence is left unexplained, that clear and convincing evidence exists that may warrant the termination of parental rights under section 232.116 of the Iowa Code). In light of the mother's progress in rectifying her parental deficiencies, the county attorney, the guardian ad litem, the father's attorney, and the state attorney general at the appellate level have all advocated allowing the mother six more months to pursue reunification. In sum, given the circumstances of this case, it was error to direct the initiation of termination proceedings. We reverse.