Opinion
No. 5-821 / 05-1614
Filed December 7, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Constance Cohen, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her daughter. AFFIRMED.
Brad Schroeder of Hartung Schroeder, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Katherine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Stephanie Brown, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Maria Ruhtenberg, Des Moines, for father.
Christine Milligan-Ciha, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Amanda, the mother of Malia, born in May of 2003, appeals from the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights. She contends the State presented insufficient evidence and termination is not in Malia's best interest. On de novo review, we affirm.
Malia was removed from Amanda's care in July of 2004 because Amanda left her home alone at times, left her in the care of a fifteen-year-old babysitter for more than twenty-four hours, and Amanda was arrested on assault charges. Malia was placed with her father.
In July of 2005 the State petitioned to terminate Amanda's parental rights to Malia under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (e), (h), and ( l) (2005). Following a hearing in September, the court terminated Amanda's parental rights under all the sections pled.
Our review 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 on more than one statutory ground, we need only find clear and convincing evidence supports one ground cited in order to affirm. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999).
Amanda does not challenge the termination of her parental rights under sections 232.116(1)(d), (e), or ( l). She has not preserved error as to these sections. She only challenges the evidence supporting termination under section 232.116(1)(h). Amanda was incarcerated at the time of the termination hearing, having served about seventy days of a 365-day sentence. She admitted Malia could not be returned to her care at that time. We find clear and convincing evidence supports termination on this ground.
Amanda also contends terminating her parental rights is not in Malia's interest. She argues the State did not present evidence Amanda does not have a strong bond with Malia and is attached to her. She asserts termination is not required because Malia is in her father's care. We disagree for the following reasons. Amanda has ongoing substance abuse problems that disrupt her relationship with Malia. Her own actions resulted in her incarceration, effectively preventing her from maintaining a significant and meaningful relationship with her daughter. Malia is thriving in the safe, stable home of her father. It would be more harmful to Malia to continue the detrimental and disruptive relationship with her mother than to terminate Amanda's parental rights. We agree with the juvenile court there "are no compelling reasons to maintain the parent/child relationship" between Amanda and Malia.