Opinion
No. 6-120 / 06-0010
Filed March 15, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Jane Mylrea, Associate Juvenile Judge.
J.S. appeals from the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Leslie Blair of Blair Fitzsimmons, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant father.
C.W., Dubuque, mother, pro se.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Fred McCaw, County Attorney, and Jean Becker, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Kimberly Roddick, Dubuque, for minor children.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
Jason appeals from a juvenile court order that terminated his parental rights to his son. Upon our de novo review, we affirm.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Jason is the father of Calvin, who was born in March of 2005. At the time of the birth, Calvin's mother, Collette, was married to John. The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) removed Calvin from Collette's care on March 21, 2005, for a variety or reasons.
Collette and John previously had their parental rights to three of their children terminated.
In May of 2005, Genetic testing proved that Jason was the father of Calvin. Jason began participating in a variety of services. He exercised supervised visitation with Calvin; however, he never progressed to having unsupervised visitation with his son.
Calvin was adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) on August 5, 2005. On October 27, 2005, the State filed a petition to terminate Jason's parental rights, and following a hearing, Jason's parental rights were terminated by the juvenile court in an order filed December 22, 2005. Jason has appealed.
Collette consented to the termination of her parental rights in September of 2005. Her parental rights are not at issue in this appeal.
II. Scope Standards of Review
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1993). Clear and convincing evidence must support the grounds for termination. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
III. Discussion
On appeal, Jason asserts the juvenile court erred in finding that clear and convincing evidence supports the termination of his parental rights. He also contends the juvenile court erred in failing to place Calvin with his paternal grandmother and in failing to grant him an additional six months to assume care.
The juvenile court terminated Jason's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2003) (child is three or younger, child CINA, removed from home for six of last twelve months, and child cannot be returned home). Jason does not dispute the first three requirements of section 232.116(1)(h) have been met; however, he argues the evidence does not support the conclusion that his son cannot be returned to his care. We conclude the record does not support the father's argument.
Jason has a full-scale IQ of 59. He is mildly mentally retarded, and he receives Supplemental Social Security Income due to his learning disabilities. Jason has proven unable to maintain stable housing and employment. He has been charged with domestic abuse on at least three occasions following altercations with Calvin's mother and has been arrested once for violating a no contact order. Jason only recently improved his compliance with mental health services after missing several months of therapy and medication for anger management. A recent psychological evaluation concludes that Jason will likely always have difficulty maintaining a stable home, has a limited ability to understand what has been asked of him, and would require ongoing support indefinitely if granted care of his son.
The record reveals that at the time of the termination hearing, Jason had moved in with his girlfriend, Melissa, and her children. Melissa has a founded child abuse report for denial of critical care and lack of supervision for allowing her children to be supervised by a known sex offender.
At the termination hearing, a caseworker from Horizons, a family-centered services organization, testified that she would not be comfortable with Jason having unsupervised contact with Calvin. She also testified that Jason does not have "great comprehension or understanding" of Calvin's "developmental milestones, of his needs — emotional, physical, all of that." She concluded that although Jason expresses love to Calvin and has a bond with the child, Calvin would not be safe in his care, and Jason would be unable to provide appropriate parenting. We agree with the juvenile court's conclusion that Calvin cannot be safely returned to Jason's custody.
Jason also contends that the juvenile court erred in failing to place Calvin with his paternal grandmother. The juvenile court found that Calvin's grandmother had never met the child and has not seen Jason for some time. The court noted that Jason's request to place the child with the paternal grandmother appeared to be a "last-ditch" effort to place the child with a family member even though the grandmother "has not been committed in the past to either Jason or his son." We agree with the juvenile court's finding that it is not in Calvin's best interests to place him with his grandmother.
Jason's final contention is that the juvenile court should have granted him an additional six months to assume care for Calvin. An area supervisor at Horizons testified at the termination hearing that Jason would be unable to accomplish reunification in six months, and he would always need regular assistance with Calvin. The supervisor also testified that Calvin would be at risk if he were placed with his father. A social worker with DHS testified that Jason simply does not possess the skills to parent Calvin, and he was never able to move beyond supervised visitation. Calvin should not have to wait any longer for Jason to become a responsible parent. In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 1990); In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Iowa 1987). We agree with the juvenile court's decision to deny Jason an additional six months to attempt reunification.
The decision to terminate Jason's parental rights must reflect Calvin's best interests even when the statutory grounds for termination are met. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). It is apparent that serious concerns still exist regarding Jason's stability and his ability to provide adequate care for Calvin. Calvin has been removed from his parents' care for almost one year. Despite the provision of numerous services, Jason remains unable to provide a safe and secure home for his son. When we consider Calvin's best interests, we look to his long-range as well as immediate best interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). Calvin has adjusted well to his current foster home, where permanency is available. We find that the termination of Jason's parental rights is clearly in his son's best interests.
We affirm the juvenile court's decision to terminate Jason's parental rights to Calvin.