Opinion
No. 5-888 / 05-1512
Filed December 7, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buena Vista County, Mary L. Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights. AFFIRMED.
John Loughlin of Loughlin Law Firm, Cherokee, for appellant-mother.
Joshua Walsh of Gailey Walsh Law Office, Newell, for appellant-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Phil Havens, County Attorney, and Rick C. Kimble, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Mary Hamilton of Hamilton Law Office, Storm Lake, for appellee-paternal grandmother.
Ryan Kolpin, Aurelia, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
The child in interest was born in July 2002. In executing a search warrant at her parents' home in September 2002, police officers found the child, in her baby carrier, next to a table covered with methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. The parents were arrested on drug charges, and were later sentenced to prison terms. The child was initially placed in foster care, and then with the paternal grandmother and her husband. She was adjudicated to be a child in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2003).
In January 2004, the State filed a petition seeking termination of the parents' rights. The termination hearing was not held until May 2005. The juvenile court terminated the parents' rights under sections 232.116(1)(e) and (h) (2005). The court found "It is unfortunate that too little was done by (the parents) to take advantage of the opportunities provided to them to have (the child) returned to them." The court concluded that termination of the parents' rights was in the child's best interests. The parents appeal.
II. Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
III. Father A. Continuance.
The father contends the juvenile court should have granted his motion for a continuance. He wanted to be able to present information about his possible schedule of release from prison. The court denied the motion for a continuance, finding that the proceedings had been pending for a long time and the child needed permanency. We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See In re C.W., 554 N.W.2d 279, 281 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996) (noting that we review a ruling on a motion for a continuance for an abuse of discretion).
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence.
The father raises two arguments claiming the State did not present sufficient evidence to support termination of his parental rights under section 232.116(1)(e). The father does not challenge the termination of his parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h). Failure in the brief to state, to argue or to cite authority in support of an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(1)( c). Because the father has waived any argument regarding section 232.116(1)(h), we may affirm the termination of his parental rights on this ground. We need only find termination proper on one ground to affirm. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995).
C. Best Interests.
The father claims termination of his parental rights is not in the child's best interests. The child has been out of the father's care since September 2002. The father had a substantial amount of time to show that he is able to care for the child, but he failed to do so. No relationship exists between the father and daughter. The father has not demonstrated the ability to meet the child's needs, and we conclude termination of his parental rights is in her best interests.
The father also argues the juvenile court should not have terminated his parental rights because the child is in the care of relatives. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(a) (providing that the court need not terminate parental rights if "[a] relative has legal custody of the child"). The juvenile court did not address this issue, and we find it has not been preserved for our review. An issue which was not raised before the juvenile court may not be raised for the first time on appeal. In re N.W.E., 564 N.W.2d 451, 455 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
IV. Mother A. Reasonable Efforts.
The mother claims the State did not engage in reasonable efforts to reunite her with the child. She asserts that during her incarceration she was denied requested services and increased contact with the child. The mother is in federal prison in Illinois. "The services required to be supplied an incarcerated parent, as with any other parent, are only those that are reasonable under the circumstances." In re S.J., 620 N.W.2d 522, 525 (Iowa Ct.App. 2000). We find the services which were provided to mother were reasonable under the facts of this case. The mother received visitation with the child while she was in jail in Iowa, but it would be too disruptive to the child to require her to be transported to Illinois for visitation at the prison.
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence.
The mother contends the State did not present sufficient evidence to justify termination of her parental rights. On our de novo review, we find clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of the mother's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h). The child had been out of the home since September 2002, far longer than six months. The mother is in federal prison, which means the child cannot be returned to her care at the present time. By affirming the termination based on section 232.116(1)(h), we do not need to address any other statutory grounds for termination. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999).
C.
We find the mother has failed to preserve error on her claim the juvenile court did not need to terminate her parental rights because the child is in the care of a relative for the same reasons discussed above in our discussion of the father's claims on this same issue.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.