Opinion
No. 0-283 / 00-0010
Filed June 14, 2000
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Patrick H. Tott, Associate Juvenile Judge.
The father of four minor children appeals the district court order terminating his parental rights. The father argues the district court erred in terminating his parental rights based on Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b) and (d) (1999), because termination was not in the children's best interest.
AFFIRMED.
Douglas L. Roehrich, Sioux City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Charles K. Phillips, Assistant Attorney General, and Dewey P. Sloan, County Attorney, for appellee State.
Joseph Kertels of the Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and MAHAN and MILLER, JJ.
Appellant/Father L.M. appeals the juvenile court's order terminating his parental rights to his four children contending termination is not in his children's best interests. We affirm.
Appellate review of proceeding to terminate a parent-child relationship is de novo; thus it is our duty to review the facts as well as the law and adjudicate rights anew on those propositions properly preserved and presented to us. In re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981). We accord weight to the fact findings of the juvenile court, especially when considering the credibility of the witnesses, whom that court heard and observed firsthand, but we are not bound by those findings. Id. Central to a determination of this nature are the best interests of the child. Id.
L.M. does not contend the court erred in finding the State had proven by clear and convincing evidence the statutory grounds for termination. After the court determines all of the criteria have been established by clear and convincing evidence, it must still determine whether termination would be in the child's best interest. See Iowa Code §§ 232.116(2), (3) (1999); In re T.R., 483 N.W.2d 334, 337 (Iowa App. 1992). There is a rebuttable presumption the best interests of the child are served by custody of the natural parents. Iowa Code § 232.1 (1999); see also Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1394-95, 71 L.Ed.2d 599, 606 (1982). The State, as parens patriae, has the duty to assure every child within its borders receives proper care and treatment, and must intercede when parents abdicate that responsibility. In re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d at 745. L.M. contends the juvenile court erred in determining termination was in the children's best interests.
L.M.'s parental rights were terminated under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b) and (d).
The following facts were before the juvenile court at the time of the termination hearing. The four children had been removed from the care of their parents on December 14, 1998, less than two weeks after a previous child in need of assistance (CINA) case involving the older three children had been closed. (The youngest of the four children was born during the time the first CINA case was pending.) The December 14, 1998 emergency removal pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.78 came about when both parents were arrested for various drug offenses. Large quantities of drugs were found in the house, including fifty-one grams of cocaine, forty-nine grams of methamphetamine, and 473 grams of marijuana. Some of these drugs were found in the children's mattresses. The children were once again found to be CINA, as defined in Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b), (c)(2), (g), and (n), on March 4, 1999. The CINA adjudicatory order also prohibited any contact between L.M. and the children until L.M. submitted an application for visitation and a hearing was held. As a result of his arrest in December 1998, L.M. received a prison sentence not to exceed twenty-five years. It is unknown when he will be eligible for parole.
The first CINA action, initiated in December 1996, was opened due to extreme domestic violence, drug usage, and extreme filth in the household which resulted in a cockroach being removed from one child's ear. The case was closed when the mother "proved" to the juvenile court's satisfaction she had ended her relationship with L.M. and was able to care for her children. L.M. refused any services during this case and was the subject of a no-contact order throughout the duration of the case.
Orders in the first CINA case provided that L.M. have no contact with the children, and later no contact with their mother, until L.M. submitted to a psychosocial evaluation and completed a batterers program. He did neither, declined all services during that case, and had no contact with the children during that case. He contacted the department of human services twice during three years of juvenile court litigation to inquire as to his responsibilities and rights under the case plan, but did nothing further. It appears L.M. is unable and unwilling to adapt to his children's present or future needs. His incarceration cannot serve as an excuse for his conduct. See, e.g., In re J.L.W., 523 N.W.2d 622, 624 (Iowa App. 1994). The general rule is unavailability to parent as a result of being incarcerated is no excuse. Id. An incarcerated parent must take full responsibility for the conduct that resulted in confinement. Id. We will not await the disposition of his pending criminal appeal. We cannot preserve a relationship in law that does not exist in fact, with the children committed indefinitely to the parentless limbo of foster care. See In re E.B.L., 501 N.W.2d 547, 551 (Iowa 1993). To keep the children in indefinite, temporary foster care while their father serves out his prison sentence is not in the children's best interests. See In re T.T., 541 N.W.2d 552, 557 (Iowa App. 1995). A parent must be able to meet the present needs of children, as well as have the capacity to adapt to their future needs. In re E.B.L., 501 N.W.2d 547, 551 (Iowa 1993).
Even if L.M.'s conviction were to be overturned in the future, we find abundant evidence termination is in the children's best interests. The juvenile court found L.M. had abandoned his children, and he does not appeal that finding. The juvenile court also found L.M. did not take any affirmative steps to meet the financial obligations for his children, a finding L.M. does not challenge on appeal. There appears little likelihood L.M. will lead a law-abiding, drug-free lifestyle when released from prison. We have frequently noted a good prediction of the future conduct of a parent is to look at past conduct. See, e.g., In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa App. 1998).
Prior to his present incarceration L.M. showed little or no interest in being a parent to the four children in this case. It may be years before he is released, and then it appears unlikely he will have the interest or ability to be a parent. We find the juvenile court's termination of parental rights to be in the children's best interests, and therefore affirm the termination order.
AFFIRMED.