Opinion
No. 6-051 / 05-2048
Filed February 15, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals from the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Richard K. Betterton, Cedar Falls, for appellant-father.
Mary Kennedy, Waterloo, for mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Steven J. Halbach, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Andrew Thalacker, Waterloo, for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Mahan, JJ.
A father appeals from the termination of his parental rights to his children. He contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and that termination is not in the children's best interests. We review his claims de novo. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
The father's parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(e) and (h) (2005). When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we need only find termination proper under one ground to affirm. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). Termination under section 232.116(1)(e) is appropriate where:
(1) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance.
(2) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child's parents for a period of at least six consecutive months.
(3) There is clear and convincing evidence that the parents have not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child during the previous six consecutive months and have made no reasonable efforts to resume care of the child despite being given the opportunity to do so.
The father does not dispute the first two elements of this section have been met, but contends the State has failed to prove he has not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the children during the previous six months and has made no reasonable efforts to resume care of the children despite being given an opportunity to do so.
Clear and convincing evidence shows termination under this section was appropriate. In a social investigation and report to the court, dated January 27, 2005, the father indicated he had not seen the children for eighteen months. In a report to the court dated April 18, 2005, the father reported it was too much work to try and get custody of his children and he was leaving the state. His whereabouts were unknown when the petition for termination was filed on August 11, 2005. At the termination hearing in November 2005, the father testified he was incarcerated and expected to be paroled in May 2006. He had spoken to the children only one time during the past year. The relatives caring for the children testified the children did not know their father. The juvenile court found the probability of the father being "a suitable option for his children within the next year to be remote," due to his "history of substance abuse, instability and law violation." Under the facts of this case, termination is warranted.
We also conclude termination is in the children's best interests. The children have been in the care of relatives for almost two years. The relatives are meeting the children's special needs and wish to adopt them.
We affirm the termination of the father's parental rights to his children.