Opinion
No. 3-671 / 03-1274
Filed September 24, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William A. Price, District Associate Judge.
A father and mother appeal the juvenile court's order terminating their parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Wendell Harms of Harms Law Office, Des Moines, for appellant-mother.
J. Mayer, Des Moines, for appellant-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and William Sales, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Kathryn Miller, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
Devontae was born in August of 2002. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of his parents, Terry and Candi, on July 10, 2003. Terry's parental rights were terminated under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (d), (g), (h) and (i). Candi's rights were terminated under sections 232.116(1)(b), (d), (g), (h) and (i). Both parents have filed petitions on appeal challenging the termination, asking that it be reversed or that further briefing be ordered. We find further briefing not necessary and we affirm the termination.
Devontae remained in his mother's care following his birth until September 23, 2002, when Candi was incarcerated and left him in the care of a family friend. Three men were identified as his possible father. There was a finding Devontae was a child in need of assistance as determined by section 232.2(6)(c)(2) on November 20, 2002. A dispositional hearing was held on January 6, 2003, and Terry's paternity was established at that time. There were no further hearings before a termination petition was filed on April 7, 2003. A hearing on the petition was held on May 29 and June 2 of 2003. A review hearing scheduled for June 6 was not held.
Terry contends (1) there was not clear and convincing evidence to support the termination and the juvenile court should have granted him custody or entered an order providing for services to unite him with his daughter and (2) that termination of his parental rights is not in the child's best interest.
Candi contends (1) there was not clear and convincing evidence to support a finding she abandoned her child as defined by section 232.116(1)(b); (2) the finding of termination under section 232.116(1)(d)(2) is not supported by clear and convincing evidence; (3) the finding that Devontae cannot be returned to her under section 232.116(1)(h)(4) and 232.102 is not supported by clear and convincing evidence; (4) there is not clear and convincing evidence supporting a finding that the offer or receipt of services would not correct the conditions that resulted in the filing of the child in need of assistance petition; and (5) the termination of her parental rights is not in the child's best interest.
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re M.N.W., 577 N.W.2d 874, 875 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). The State has the burden of proving the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. See In re T.A.L., 505 N.W.2d 480 (Iowa 1993). 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 (Iowa Ct.App. 1992); see also Alsager v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 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).
The issue of whether or not to legally sever the biological ties between parent and child is an issue of grave importance with serious repercussions to the child as well as the biological parents. See R.B., 493 N.W.2d at 899. The goal of a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding is to improve parenting skills and maintain the parent-child relationship. A parent does not have an unlimited amount of time in which to correct his or her deficiencies. In re H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d 675, 677 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground we need only find grounds to terminate parental rights under one of the sections cited by the juvenile court in order to affirm its ruling. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). We first determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence supporting one or more of the grounds for termination found by the juvenile court.
Candi was nineteen when her son was born. She had left her mother's home at fourteen and it was said she has lived by her wits since. She apparently had no education beyond ninth grade. Devontae was placed by his mother with a friend who had custody at the time of the termination hearing and indicated an intention to adopt the child. The placement was necessary as Candi had been arrested on a parole violation. At the time there also were concerns that the child was not developing properly and was underweight and not responsive and that Candi was not feeding him properly. Candi was initially jailed and then placed in the Des Moines Women's Correctional Facility. Initially she did well, recognizing prior mistakes which had included engaging in prostitution, using marijuana, and not following probation. She had frequent visits with her son during which she exhibited appropriate parenting skills. She was placed in a residential facility, but she left the facility on January 17, 2003 contrary to the terms of her placement there. She left the area and traveled to Missouri. She ultimately turned herself in near the end of March. At the time of the termination hearing she was waiting to be placed in The Violator's Program at Mitchellville where she would have to remain for about six months.
Terry, who is about forty-two years old, is the father of at least four other children as to whom his parental rights have been terminated. Two of those children had been placed in his care for a short period but he was not able to care for them and voluntarily placed them in foster care. He consented to the termination of his parental rights. Terry was granted visitation with Devontae after he was identified as the father. While Terry exhibited appropriate conduct during the visits for the most part, he was infrequent in his attendance. At the time of the termination hearing he no longer had scheduled visits because of his lack of participation. At the time of the termination hearing he was seeking a divorce from his wife and was living alone.
There is clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination of both parents' rights under section 232.116(1)(d) and we affirm on this ground.
Terry also contends his son should be placed in his custody or he should have additional services. He did not request other services and did not utilize the services that he was given. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999); In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994) (stating parent must demand services if he or she feels they are inadequate prior to termination). There is no evidence he has requested other services. There is no basis to award him custody or to grant him additional time to attempt to gain custody of his son, and we disagree with his request he be allowed to do so.
Both parties contend termination of parental rights is not in their son's best interest. If the juvenile court determines the criteria for termination of parental rights are satisfied, the juvenile court must still make the determination that the termination would be in the child's best interest. In re C.W., 554 N.W.2d 279, 282 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996); In re T.Q., 519 N.W.2d 105 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). We must consider a child's long-range and immediate best interests. In re A.B., 492 N.W.2d 446, 450 (Iowa Ct.App. 1992). There is no basis to find the termination is not in the child's best interest. We affirm.