Opinion
No. 07-1232.
September 6, 2007.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan Flaherty, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her daughter. AFFIRMED.
H. Nick Gloe, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Kelly Kaufman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Henry Keyes of Keyes Law Offices, Cedar Rapids, for appellee father.
Janice Binder, Mount Vernon, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and VOGEL and BAKER, JJ.
[EDITORS' NOTE: THE PUBLICATION STATUS OF THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED. THE PRECEDENTIAL VALUE OF CASES WHICH ARE NOT YET PUBLISHED IS GOVERNED BY IOWA CT. R. 6.14 (5).]
Vanessa appeals from the July 2007 order terminating her parental rights to Domanique pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (e), and (f) (2007). She claims the State failed to prove (1) Domanique could not be returned to her care, (2) it had made reasonable efforts toward reunification, and (3) she had abandoned Domanique.
Upon our de novo review of the record, In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991), we affirm the termination of Vanessa's parental rights. Vanessa did not appear or present evidence at the termination hearing. Nor does she offer any argument on appeal as to how she could in any fashion safely parent Domanique. Since Domanique's father assumed her care in 2003, Vanessa has had no contact with Domanique, she has not requested reunification services through the Iowa Department of Human Services, has not requested contact or visitation, and has not sought to have Domanique placed with her in her home state of Florida. Furthermore, since Domanique was adjudicated to be a child in need of assistance, Vanessa has been incarcerated in Florida. See In re M.T., 613 N.W.2d 690, 692 (Iowa Ct.App. 2000) (stating an incarcerated parent cannot complain when his or her own actions caused the inability to benefit from services). Consequently, she is in no position to resume care of Domanique. No additional amount of time or services would have altered this conclusion. The State proved each element under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (e) and (f), and appropriately found termination was in Domanique's best interest. We find no merit in the issues Vanessa asserts on appeal.