Opinion
No. 05-1134
Filed August 31, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Jane Spande, District Associate Judge.
D.T. appeals from the termination of his parental rights to M.P. AFFIRMED.
Deborah Skelton of White Johnson, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Kelly Kaufman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Judy Goldberg, Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Mahan and Miller, JJ.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Derrick and Kristine are the parents of Mara, born in February 2004. Derrick was in prison at the time of Mara's birth, and he remained in prison throughout these juvenile court proceedings. Mara was removed from Kristine's care in May 2004 after a hair test showed Mara had been exposed to cocaine. Mara was adjudicated to be a child in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2003) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent's failure to supervise), (n) (parent's drug abuse results in child not receiving adequate care), and (o) (illegal drug present in child).
In January 2005 the State filed an application for a permanency hearing, which recommended that the court order a petition for termination of parental rights to be filed. In the meantime, on March 7, 2005, the State filed a petition for termination of parental rights. A hearing was held on March 9, 2005, and the court continued prior orders, noting the termination petition had been filed.
The termination hearing was held in June 2005. At the hearing Derrick argued that Mara should be placed in a guardianship with his brother and sister-in-law and that his parental rights should not be terminated. After the hearing Derrick filed a motion for a specific ruling on his request for the permanency goal to be changed to another planned permanent living arrangement. The juvenile court entered a separate ruling finding that it lacked authority under section 232.117 (2005), to convert the termination hearing to a permanency hearing.
The juvenile court terminated Derrick's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(e) (child CINA, removed for six months, parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact) and (h) (child three or younger, CINA, removed for at least six months, and child cannot be returned home). The juvenile court found:
Termination of the parental rights of Derrick pursuant to said section is not avoided by the present availability of a suitable relative placement as an alternative to Mara's continuing placement in foster care. A child of Mara's age is in dire need of permanency and stability. . . . The Department's failure to previously place Mara with Derrick's brother and sister-in-law is also not sufficient to avoid termination of the father's parental rights. . . . Indeed the court finds such placement would not likely have avoided the termination of parental rights now ordered because of the child's age and need for permanency and stability in placement. It is not in Mara's best interest that she be again adjudicated as a child in need of assistance to allow additional time for Derrick to prove himself as a father while she resides with relatives.
Derrick appeals the termination of his parental rights.
II. Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
III. Merits
Derrick asserts the juvenile court should have held a combined permanency and termination hearing. He claims that rather than terminate his parental rights, the juvenile court should have placed Mara with his relatives. He believes termination was unnecessary because Mara could live with his relatives until he is released from prison and able to care for her.
Contrary to Derrick's arguments, the juvenile court considered the placement of Mara with relatives. The court concluded that such a placement would not have avoided the termination because of Mara's need for permanency and stability. The court found it was not in Mara's best interests for her to continue as a child in need of assistance until Derrick was released from prison and able to demonstrate sufficient parenting skills so that Mara could be placed in his care. We agree with the juvenile court's reasoning. It would not be in Mara's best interests for her to wait longer for a stable and secure home.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.