Opinion
No. 5-027 / 04-0699
Filed February 9, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her son. AFFIRMED.
Nyaradzai Kadenge of the Kadenge Law Office, Waterloo, for appellant.
Craig Ament of the Ament Law Firm, Waterloo, for appellee.
Lawrence Stumme of Stumme Law Office, Denver, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
A mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her son. We affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
Austin E. was born in November of 1990 to Matthew E. and Melissa L. Matthew has had physical care of Austin since 1995. In November of 1996, Melissa was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $246 per month; however, by agreement of the parties, this amount was reduced to $120 per month for thirty-six months starting in October of 1998. Between October of 2000 and August of 2003, Melissa made no payments.
On July 31, 2003, Matthew and his wife, Michelle, filed a petition seeking to terminate Melissa's parental rights to Austin. The petition sought termination on grounds of abandonment and failure to financially support Austin. Iowa Code § 600A.8(3), (5) (2003). Following a trial on the petition, the court granted the termination on both grounds alleged. Melissa appeals.
While the district court's order does not cite to section 600A.8(5), it is apparent the court relied on this provision considering the language of its termination order and the petition seeking termination.
Scope and Standards of Review.
Private termination proceedings are reviewed de novo. In re R.K.B., 572 N.W.2d 600, 601 (Iowa 1998). Although we are not bound by them, we give weight to the district court's findings of fact, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( f). 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).
The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2001). The child's best interests are our paramount consideration. Iowa Code § 600A.1.
Failure to Support.
We first address the district court's conclusion Melissa's parental rights should be terminated on grounds of non-support. Section 600A.8(5) authorizes termination of parental rights if a parent has been ordered to pay child support and fails without good cause to do so. In re R.K.B., 572 N.W.2d at 601. The party requesting termination of parental rights on this ground has the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defaulting parent had the ability to pay the amount of support ordered. Id. at 601-02. Our Supreme Court has concluded that the legislature intended termination for non-support to occur where a parent's failure to pay manifests indifference to a child and is therefore akin to abandonment. See Klobnock v. Abbott, 303 N.W.2d 149, 152 (Iowa 1981). The issue of whether nonpayment was without good cause focuses on the obligor's ability to pay. In re D.E.E., 472 N.W.2d 628, 630 (Iowa Ct.App. 1991).
Here, the record indicates that Melissa is approximately $10,000 in arrears on her child support obligation. As noted, she made no payments between October of 2000 and August of 2003. Her resumption of payments coincided with the time at which the termination petition was filed. Furthermore, the only payments Melissa made between October 26, 1999, and October 10, 2000, were forty-six wage assignments of $32.33 apiece and one wage assignment of $4.14.
The only payments made following the filing of the termination petition were four $50 payments made in August and September of 2003, one $100 payment in November, and a $300 payment made on the morning of the termination hearing, January 30, 2004.
Melissa claimed that she was unable to pay child support during this period because she was a student and could not afford to pay anything. We find these reasons insufficient to constitute "good cause" for Melissa's failure to pay her obligation. First, Melissa continued to disregard her child support obligation even after becoming employed as a paralegal in December 2002 and admitting her economic situation had "definitely" improved, as she was earning approximately fifteen dollars per hour. Another reason she gave for her failure to pay was that she had to pay her student loans back. This is insufficient to establish good cause. See In re Marriage of Nelson, 570 N.W.2d 103, 109 (Iowa 1997) (noting that the Iowa Child Support Guidelines expressly make retirement of indebtedness a lower priority than the needs of children). Melissa further explained
And I didn't have for years things that everyone has. I mean, there were maybe furniture I didn't have, there was maybe dishes I didn't have. So, I mean, I've spent some time trying to build myself back up from being down so long.
This explanation appears to focus on Melissa's material shortcomings and falls significantly short of constituting good cause. She also testified
I know [Mathew and Michelle] were able to provide for him financially. That's why I didn't feel the child support was detrimental.
As noted, Melissa made no payments whatsoever for a number of years, but she did have disposable income for her own leisure activities. Her resumption of some payments following the filing of this termination petition was inconsistent and in small amounts. Even a nominal amount of support, paid as regularly as possible, would have been evidence of Melissa's intent to support Austin. See In re R.K.B., 572 N.W.2d 600, 602 (Iowa 1998). The record does not establish that Melissa made even nominal payments sufficient to avoid termination. Accordingly, we agree with the district court's conclusion termination was appropriate under section 600A.8(5) for failure to pay support.
Best Interests.
Once a determination is made that a ground for termination under section 600A.8 has been established, we address the issue of the child's best interests. In re J.L.W., 523 N.W.2d 622, 624 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). We agree with the district court's conclusion termination was in Austin's best interests. Austin, who was thirteen years-old at the time of the hearing, did not desire a relationship with Melissa. There appeared to be no evidence of any bond between Austin and Melissa. At times Melissa showed little interest in taking advantage of the Department of Human Services efforts aimed at reunification. In fact, between December of 1999 and the date this termination petition was filed, Melissa made virtually no effort to parent Austin. Her only contact with Austin during this timeframe appears to have been during a chance encounter at a Wal-Mart. Considering Melissa's history of not contacting Austin, not supporting him financially, and otherwise showing little interest in being a parent to Austin, we affirm the district court's conclusion regarding Austin's best interests.