Opinion
No. 4-280 / 04-0365
May 14, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Arthur E. Gamble, Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his son. AFFIRMED.
J. Michael Mayer, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner and Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorneys General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Michelle Chenoweth, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Nicole Garbis-Nolan of the Youth Law Center, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Hecht and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Peter appeals from the termination of his parental rights to his son. We affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
On August 25, 2002, Jason was born in a sudden delivery at home with no medical assistance. Because she had used drugs during her pregnancy and feared doctors would detect cocaine in Jason's bloodstream, Jason's mother decided not to take him to the hospital after his birth. On September 5, 2002, a Department of Human Services (DHS) worker arrived at the home to investigate. Jason's mother was out of town, and her friend was caring for Jason. Jason's biological father, Peter, was present in the house when DHS arrived. The social worker determined Jason was not being cared for properly and removed him immediately. Jason was adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) on October 28, 2002.
Peter's interactions with DHS have been marked by hostility and deceit, and he has made only mediocre efforts to follow through with the recommendations of DHS. Although services were offered, Peter refused to take the parenting skills classes or visit counselors recommended by DHS. Instead, he eventually took classes and counseling he located himself. Although he reportedly made some progress with his anger management and parenting skills, his attendance was sporadic. Peter accused DHS of disparate treatment because he was a Kenyan immigrant, and demonstrated such hostility towards an in-home service provider that a behavior contract had to be utilized in order to continue services.
Peter misled and deceived DHS workers about his residence, his relationships, and ultimately, his marriage. He consistently told DHS that he was no longer in a relationship with Jason's mother, but was in fact living with her. In October of 2003, Peter married another woman, but failed to inform DHS of the marriage or the resulting change in residence.
Peter utilized supervised visitation and bonded with his son. However, during these supervised visits, Peter was unable to interact appropriately and effectively with Jason, who has behavioral problems consistent with being drug-affected as a baby. Peter attempted to impose strict structure on the toddler and was quickly frustrated when Jason didn't do what Peter wanted. Peter, in frustration, raised his voice to the child, who reacted with tantrums, starting a vicious cycle. The in-home worker noted that Peter improved as long as she gave him cues, but that he couldn't interact effectively with Jason without her help. She also noted that Peter's hands often shook visibly in anger and frustration when he was with Jason. Although Peter's parenting skills had improved, he had not been granted unsupervised visitations.
The State petitioned for termination of Jason's parental rights on September 3, 2003. In December, Peter was detained by INS because of questions about the legality of his immigration status. When the termination hearing was held on January 20, 2004, Peter's wife testified that he had been released several days earlier and had dropped her off at the courthouse that morning. However, Peter chose not to attend the termination hearing, purportedly at the advice of his immigration attorney. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court terminated Peter's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (h), and (l) (2003). Peter appeals.
Standard of Review.
We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). While the juvenile court terminated the parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we will affirm if one ground has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). Our primary concern is the best interests of the children. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
Discussion.
Peter contends the State has not established by clear and convincing evidence that the circumstances leading to Jason's adjudication as CINA still exist, as required by section 232.116(1)(d), that Jason cannot be returned to his father's care, as required by section 232.116(1)(h), or that Peter has a severe and chronic substance abuse problem, as required by section 232.116(1)(l). He also contends termination is not in Jason's best interests.
Our de novo review of the record leads us to conclude that the State has established by clear and convincing evidence that Jason cannot be returned to Peter's care, and the district court appropriately terminated Peter's parental rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(h).
Prior to the termination hearing, Peter had not seen his son for roughly a month because he had been taken into custody by INS due to questions surrounding his immigration status. Although he had been released days before the hearing, he had not yet contacted DHS to inform them of his current whereabouts or to re-establish a visitation schedule with Jason. In fact, Peter did not even attend the termination hearing.
Although Peter had been exercising the visitation with his son offered by DHS, he was not stable or cooperative enough to have been granted unsupervised visitation as of the date of the hearing. He refused to attend the classes and counseling recommended by DHS, and attended only sporadically the classes and counseling he found on his own. The in-home worker testified that Peter had improved in his interactions with his son, but that he still had visible difficulty controlling his anger around Jason. She noted that the more Peter controlled the level of his voice, the more his hands shook, indicating he had not learned to control his anger, but was only suppressing it. Given Peter's inability to parent Jason effectively coupled with his consistent lack of cooperation and deceit in his dealing with DHS, we conclude the State has proven with clear and convincing evidence that Jason cannot be returned to Peter's care at this time. In addition, given Peter's lackluster performance in the seventeen months prior to the termination hearing, we have no reason to believe Peter would prove himself willing or able to parent Jason if he were given an extension of time. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court's termination of Peter's parental rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(h).
Peter also argues termination is not in Jason's best interests. Jason has been in the care of his parents for only ten days of his young life. He was seventeen months old at the time of the termination hearing. Jason needs stability and permanency, not more insecurity. We conclude it is in Jason's best interests to terminate Peter's parental rights.