Opinion
No. 4-891 / 04-1409
Filed January 26, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karla J. Fultz, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals the order terminating his parental rights to his son. AFFIRMED.
Michael Oliver, Des Moines, for appellant-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Annette Stanley, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Rachael Seymore, Des Moines, for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Michael is the father of Nicholas, who was born on June 21, 2000. Nicholas initially came to the attention of the Department of Human Services after Michael assaulted Nicholas' mother in the presence of Nicholas. Upon investigation by police, Michael informed officers that both of them had been using methamphetamine. Nicholas was removed from his parents' home on October 3, 2002, and placed with a relative. At that time Nicholas tested positive for the presence of cocaine. On November 20, 2002, Nicholas was adjudicated to be in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (6)(n) (2001). On May 28, 2004, the State filed a petition to terminate Michael's parental rights to Nicholas. Following a subsequent hearing, the juvenile court terminated Michael's parental rights under sections 232.116(1)(b), (d), and (g) (2003). Michael appeals.
We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). While the district court terminated the parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we will affirm if at least one ground has been proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995).
On appeal, Michael urges first that clear and convincing evidence does not support termination under any of the cited provisions. Second, he questions whether "the interests of the child, and the public's interests, are best served by terminating [his] obligation to provide support to" Nicholas.
On our de novo review of the record, we conclude the juvenile court properly terminated Michael's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(g). It is undisputed that Nicholas has been adjudicated CINA and that the court has previously terminated Michael's parental rights to five other children. We further find clear and convincing evidence that Michael continues to lack the ability or willingness to respond to services which would correct the situation. Since Nicholas's removal in October of 2002, Michael has had no contact with the Department of Human Services or with Nicholas. Even after his release from incarceration, Michael has not made himself available to services. He did not drop required urinalyses, comply with services, or request any visitation. Finally, we also find clear and convincing evidence that an additional period of rehabilitation would not correct the situation. We find no indication in the record that Michael would be receptive to, or successful, at any further offers of services intended to reunify him with Nicholas.
We also reject Michael's contention termination of his parental rights is not in Nicholas' best interests. Michael has an extensive criminal history and has been imprisoned and jailed on numerous occasions. He has a history of drug use. He has not been a father to Nicholas in any sense of the word, having provided him with no financial or emotional support since the inception of this case. We therefore affirm the termination of Michael's parental rights.