Opinion
No. 5-342 / 05-0386
Filed April 28, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Brian L. Michaelson, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals from a juvenile order terminating his parental rights to four children. AFFIRMED.
William L. Binkard, South Sioux City, Nebraska, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas S. Mullig, County Attorney, and Dewey P. Sloan, Assistant County Attorney.
Joseph Kertels, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
A father appeals from the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to his four children. He contends there was not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to terminate and termination is not in the best interest of the children. On de novo review, we affirm.
Rudolph is the father and Eileen the mother of Keenan, Rudolph III, Patrick, and Angeline. During the pendency of this case, the father has been incarcerated in Nebraska for domestic abuse. The children were removed from their mother's care in September 2003. The two younger children were placed with relatives, where they have remained. The two older children initially were placed in shelter care. In October 2003 they also were placed with relatives, where they have remained. In January 2004 all the children were found to be in need of assistance under Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b), (c)(2), and (n) (2003). The mother is an enrolled member of an Indian tribe. The two older children are enrolled members of that tribe. The two younger children are eligible for enrollment.
In November 2004 the State petitioned to terminate both parents' rights to the children. It sought termination of Rudolph's parental rights under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) (circumstances continue after services), (e) (lack of significant and meaningful contact), and (f) (child four years or older, cannot be returned to parent's care). Following a hearing in February 2005, the juvenile court terminated the father's parental rights under sections 232.116(1)(d) and (f). It found clear and convincing evidence supported the statutory grounds for termination. The court also concluded, "beyond any reasonable doubt" that the children would suffer serious physical or emotional injury if returned to either parent.
Although the juvenile court terminated both parents' parental rights, the mother's parental rights are not at issue in this appeal.
Our review is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). While the district court terminated the parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we will affirm if at least one ground has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995), and there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt "that continued custody by the child's parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child." 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f); Iowa Code § 232B.6(6)(a).
At the time of the termination hearing in February 2005, the father faced several months if not more than a year in prison, followed by at least six months in a halfway house. We find clear and convincing evidence none of the children could be returned to his care. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f). We also find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the children would suffer serious emotional or physical damage if placed in the father's care while he is incarcerated.
The father also claims termination is not in the best interest of the children. Even if the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights are met, the decision to terminate must still be in the interest of the children. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). The children need and deserve permanency and stability, which neither parent has been able to provide. We note that the children all have been placed with relatives and it appears the intent of the federal and Iowa Indian Child Welfare acts has been satisfied. We conclude termination of the father's parental rights is in the interest of these children.
We therefore affirm the termination of his parental rights.