Opinion
No. 3-425 / 03-0789
Filed June 13, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Patrick C. McCormick, District Associate Judge.
W.R. appeals from the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Dewey Sloan, Jr., LeMars, for appellant.
Stephanie Forker Parry of Forker Parry, Sioux City, for mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Woodbury County Attorney, and Cindy Weber, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Joseph Kertels of Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vogel, JJ.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
William appeals the termination of his parental rights to W.R., Jr., age ten. The parental rights of W.R., Jr.'s mother were also terminated and are not at issue here.
On January 30, 2001, W.R., Jr. was removed from his mother's care and placed in shelter care. On April 23, 2001, W.R., Jr. was adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(a) (parent abandoned child), (b) (parent has physically abused or neglected child or is imminently likely to do so), (c)(2) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent's failure to exercise care in supervising child), and (n) (parent's mental capacity or condition, or drug or alcohol abuse results in child not receiving adequate care) (2001). The Department of Human Services was given custody of the child for shelter/foster family/relative care. A home study was ordered on the home of a paternal aunt to determine the prospects of placing W.R., Jr. with her. The dispositional order entered May 22, 2001, placed W.R., Jr. with his mother at the Women's and Children's Center with a provision that if his mother prematurely left the program, DHS would resume custody of W.R., Jr. for shelter/foster family/relative care. In July of 2001 W.R., Jr. was placed in foster care because his mother was unable to care for him at the Women's and Children's Center. After temporary visits with the paternal aunt and uncle earlier mentioned, W.R., Jr. was placed with them on June 1, 2002.
On January 6, 2003, the State petitioned to terminate the parental rights of both parents. With respect to William, the State alleged the following grounds for terminating his parental rights: Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b) (abandonment), (e) (CINA, child removed for six months, parent has not maintained significant and meaningfully contact with the child), (f) (child four or older, CINA, removed from home for twelve of last eighteen months, and child cannot be returned home), and (j) (CINA, parent imprisoned for crime against child or unlikely to be released for five or more years) (2003). On April 15, 2003, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of William with respect to W.R., Jr. pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (e), (f), and (j) resulting in this appeal.
William raises the following issues on appeal:
(1) William's parental rights should not have been terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b).
(2) William's parental rights should not have been terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e).
(3) William's parental rights should not have been terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(j).
(4) There is no clear and convincing evidence of any of the alleged code violations (citing Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (e), and (j)).
(5) William's parental rights should not be terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(a).
II. Standard of Review.
Our review in termination of parental rights cases is de novo. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). Although we are not bound by them, we give weight to the trial court's findings of fact, especially when considering credibility of witnesses. Iowa R.App.P. 6.14(6)( g); In re M.M.S., 502 N.W.2d 4, 5 (Iowa 1993).
III. The Merits.
William maintains his parental rights should not have been terminated pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (e), and (j) and that insufficient evidence supports the termination on those grounds. Although the juvenile court also cited section 232.116(1)(f) as an additional ground for terminating William's parental rights, he does not appeal from that determination. His failure to do so waives any right to appeal that issue, and we are accordingly required to affirm the juvenile court's order terminating William's parental rights. See In re A.J., 553 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996) (when the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, the appellate court only needs to find grounds to terminate parental rights under one of the sections cited by the juvenile court in order to affirm the ruling of the juvenile court).
William also argues that termination of his parental rights was unnecessary due to W.R., Jr.'s placement with relatives. The court has discretion to deny the State's requested termination of parental rights if a relative has legal custody of the child. Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(a).
The juvenile court found:
William . . . has not seen [W.R., Jr.] since [W.R., Jr.] was four years of age. [William] has a history of drug involvement dating back to 1989 concluding with his incarceration with the Iowa Department of Correctional Services because of two charges of Possession with Intent to Deliver Methamphetamine occurring in 1998 resulting in two 25 year periods of incarceration running consecutively. Although [William] is of the opinion he will be released upon parole within or about the month of November 2003 the Court notes he also testified he becomes "eligible" within or about that date. He could remain with the Department of Correctional Services either in prison or on parole for a period substantially longer than that date.
[W.R., Jr.] has become bonded with his paternal aunt and uncle . . . and refers to them as his "mom" and "dad" as well as referring to their siblings as "brothers" and "sisters." He would not know [William] if he passed him on the street since he has not seen him since he's been four years of age.
. . . .
The contacts [W.R., Jr.] has had with his parents have caused his negative behaviors to escalate. These contacts have been limited. Letters written to [W.R., Jr.] from his father are screened. At this time, they are not being shared with [W.R., Jr.] because he has stated a strong fear that his parents will "come and kidnap" him. [W.R., Jr.] does not know his father and only says he is curious about "what he looks like." [W.R., Jr.] has talked about being adopted by [his paternal aunt and uncle] and is in favor of this.
The primary interest in termination proceedings is the best interests of the children. Iowa R.App.P. 6.14(6)( o); In re R.K.B., 572 N.W.2d 600, 601 (Iowa 1998). In determining the best interests of the children, we look to the children's long-range and immediate interests. In re J.J.S., Jr., 628 N.W.2d 25, 28 (Iowa Ct.App. 2001). The needs of children are promoted by the termination of parental rights if the grounds for terminating the parent's rights exist. In re L.M.F., 490 N.W.2d 66, 68 (Iowa Ct.App. 1992).
W.R., Jr. has been thriving in the care of his aunt and uncle. W.R., Jr. does not know and would not even recognize William. Waiting for William's release from the Department of Corrections and readiness to be a father does not advance W.R., Jr.'s long-range or immediate best interests because W.R., Jr. deserves permanency now. Furthermore, the "determination to terminate a parent-child relationship is not to be countermanded by the ability and willingness of a family member to take the child." In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 174 (Iowa 1997). The juvenile court's order terminating William's parental rights to W.R., Jr. is affirmed.