Opinion
No. 2-566 / 02-0572.
Filed July 19, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, ROBERT A. HUTCHISON, Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Aaron L. Siebrecht of Borseth, Genest Siebrecht Law Office, Altoona, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Martha Johnson, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Alexandra M. Nelissen, Urbandale, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and HUITINK and ZIMMER, JJ.
Billie, the father of Tamia, born in April of 1998, appeals from an order terminating his parental rights. He contends the termination should either be returned for full briefing or reversed. The petition, transcript, and exhibits are sufficient for us to address the issue raised. We deny the request for full briefing and we affirm the termination.
Billie and Tamia's mother never married. Tamia is one of her birth mother's four daughters. Billie is not the father of the other children. On June 18, 2001, Tamia's mother voluntarily terminated her parental rights to Tamia. In her short life Tamia had been removed twice from her mother's care and had been in several foster homes. During one of the removals Tamia lived with Billie's mother, her paternal grandmother.
Efforts to involve Billie in Tamia's life were basically unsuccessful. Tamia never was in his custody. Billie did appear at an adjudicatory hearing in February of 2000 and signed an affidavit acknowledging paternity. He appeared at the termination hearing. He did not appear at other hearings. He testified it was probably because he was in jail. He has contributed nothing of any consequence to Tamia's support, although he testified he gave her things when she lived with his mother. The Department of Human Services had difficulty contacting Billie to offer him services. He did exercise two supervised visitations, but failed to attend others. Billie indicated this was probably because he was in jail. He also testified that he did not have contact with his daughter because her mother had an order preventing him from contacting the child.
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 (1985). 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. The State has the burden of proving the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. In re H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d 675, 677 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). A parent has the right to due process and a fair trial when the State seeks to terminate parental rights. In re R.B., 493 N.W.2d 897, 898 (Iowa Ct.App. 1992); see also Alsager v. Iowa Dist. Court, 406 F. Supp. 10, 22 (S.D.Iowa 1975). A parent's right to have custody of his or her child should be terminated only with the utilization of the required constitutional safeguards. See Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042, 1045 (1923); In re T.R., 460 N.W.2d 873, 875 (Iowa Ct.App. 1990). The parent-child relationship is constitutionally protected. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 98 S.Ct. 549, 554, 54 L.Ed.2d 511, 519 (1978); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 233, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 1542, 32 L.Ed.2d 15, 35 (1972).
Billie's sole contention is there was not clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination of his parental rights to his daughter because it is not in her interest as there was a family member available to take custody. He argues his mother was able to assume Tamia's custody, and in her care the child would retain the bond with her biological family and have future financial support from her father.
The juvenile court found Billie was twenty-nine years old and had been convicted of crimes twenty-seven times. He currently is in prison. He cannot take custodial care of Tamia, nor is there any evidence that if his parental rights are not terminated Tamia can expect to receive support from him. While he professes love for his daughter and blames others and circumstances for the fact he has had little contact with her, there is nothing in this record that would support a finding that retaining his legal ties to Tamia would be in her interest. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.