From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re G.C.C

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Oct 26, 2005
707 N.W.2d 337 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005)

Opinion

No. 5-697 / 05-1384

Filed October 26, 2005

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, Robert J. Dull, District Associate Judge.

A father appeals from the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to one of his children. AFFIRMED.

Scott L. Bixenman of Murphy, Collins Bixenman, P.L.C., LeMars, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Darin J. Raymond, County Attorney, and Amy Oetken, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Mahan and Miller, JJ.


A father appeals from the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to one of his children. He contends there was not sufficient or clear and convincing evidence to support termination on the statutory grounds cited by the court. On de novo review, we affirm.

The mother's parental rights also were terminated, but she did not appeal.

Shawna and Sam are the unmarried parents of Ginger, born in March 2004. Ginger was removed from Shawna's care at birth because of the mother's mental illness and her use of methamphetamine during pregnancy. Shawna had no further contact with Ginger during the pendency of this case. Sam had not lived with Shawna since she was placed in a mental facility when she was three months pregnant. He never has had custody or care of Ginger.

Sam attended the adjudicatory hearing in April. At that time, the Department of Human Services (Department) asked Sam to submit to a drug screen. He refused, even when told a refusal was considered a positive test. Sam requested visitation with Ginger. The Department contacted Sam about visitation in late May. His first supervised visit was scheduled for mid-June. He did not contact the Department again until late July. Sam's mother told the Department he needed to get two visits in before the dispositional hearing scheduled for mid-August. Sam visited Ginger in late July and early August. In September Sam requested that visitation be increased to twice monthly and the place of the visits be moved closer to him.

Sam lives in Des Moines. At the time of Ginger's birth, Shawna was in a mental facility in northwest Iowa. Following her removal from Shawna's care at birth, Ginger was placed in foster care locally.

Sam did not attend the dispositional hearing in early October. The court found aggravated circumstances existed and waived reasonable efforts. It also ordered the State to pursue termination of Sam's and Shawna's parental rights to Ginger. Sam continued to have a monthly two-hour supervised visit with Ginger. When the Department reduced the visits to one hour, Sam refused more visitation because he had a three-hour drive each way and it "wasn't worth it." Other than Christmas presents, Sam did not make any provision for Ginger.

Sam lives in a one-bedroom apartment with his younger brother, his mother, and her boyfriend. He quit high school in his junior year and failed to obtain a GED. He does not have stable employment, but receives monthly disability payments from social security. He spends his days visiting his father, watching television, playing video games, and being part of the pit crew at races for his cousin. A psychosocial evaluation concluded he was not capable of caring for Ginger.

A dispositional review and termination hearing were held in early July 2005. The court found Sam had never worked with family centered services or undergone substance abuse treatment. It further found Sam had not requested any services, but realized they could be ordered by the court. The court concluded:

Despite protestations to the contrary by [Sam], he has not maintained any meaningful contact with his daughter. One two hour visit per month does not constitute any discharge of parental responsibilities. He has, in fact, made no identifiable effort to take any arrangement designed to increase his ability to parent his daughter. He refused and continues to refuse to sign appropriate releases. He terminated visitation with his daughter because "it wasn't worth it," hasn't sought employment in months, and apparently, as stated by his brother, "chooses" not to work. He is either unwilling or incapable of living alone, cannot manage his own finances, has a criminal history involving trespass, domestic abuse assault, disorderly conduct, and possession of controlled substance, and by his own admission has recently been evaluated as having problems with decision making and impulsive behavior. It is unreasonable to believe that his daughter could ever be placed in his custody, let alone in the foreseeable future.

The court terminated Sam's parental rights to Ginger under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) (child CINA for physical or sexual abuse (or neglect), circumstances continue despite receipt of services), (e) (child CINA, child removed for six months, parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child), and (h) (child is three or younger, child CINA, removed from home for six of last twelve months, and child cannot be returned home) (2005).

Our review of termination cases is de novo. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). The State must prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we only need find grounds to terminate under one of the sections cited by the juvenile court to affirm. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999).

We find clear and convincing evidence supports termination under section 232.116(1)(e). Although Sam participated in visitation, he did not maintain "significant and meaningful contact" with Ginger including, but not limited to,

the affirmative assumption . . . of the duties encompassed by the role of being a parent. This affirmative duty, in addition to financial obligations, requires continued interest in the child, a genuine effort to complete the responsibilities prescribed in the case permanency plan, a genuine effort to maintain communication with the child, and requires that the parents establish and maintain a place of importance in the child's life.

Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e)(3). Sam made no financial provision for Ginger. He did not obtain employment or suitable housing. He was unwilling to address his substance abuse issues. He did nothing to put himself in a position to obtain increased visitation or to move from supervised to unsupervised visitation. By the time of the termination hearing, Sam had neither established nor maintained a place of importance in Ginger's life. We affirm the termination on this ground.

We find the evidence also supports termination under section 232.116(1)(h). Sam was in no position to care and provide for Ginger at the time of the termination hearing. He has resisted attempts to resolve his substance abuse issues and does not have suitable housing. The first three elements of section 232.116(1)(h) do not appear to have been at issue, were clearly proved, and are not subject to reasonable dispute. Only the fourth element, whether the State proved Ginger could not be placed in Sam's custody and care at the time of the termination hearing, is at issue. This element is proved when the evidence shows the child cannot be returned to the parents because the child remains in need of assistance as defined by section 232.2(6). In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 277 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). The threat of probable harm will justify termination of parental rights, and the perceived harm need not be the one that supported the child's removal. In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812, 814 (Iowa 1992). We conclude Ginger would have been at risk of adjudicatory harm if placed in Sam's custody and care at the time of the termination hearing. We affirm the termination on this ground.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

In re G.C.C

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Oct 26, 2005
707 N.W.2d 337 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005)
Case details for

In re G.C.C

Case Details

Full title:IN THE INTEREST OF G.C.C., Minor Child, S.R., Father, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Oct 26, 2005

Citations

707 N.W.2d 337 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005)