Opinion
No. 6-257 / 06-0202
Filed April 12, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William S. Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.
Parents appeal the juvenile court order terminating their parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Michael O. Carpenter of Webber, Gaumer Emanuel, P.C., Ottumwa, for appellant father.
Mary Baird Krafka of Krafka Law Office, Ottumwa, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Mark Tremmel, County Attorney, and Jason Helm, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Sam K. Erhardt of Erhardt Erhardt, Ottumwa, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered en banc.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Michael and Katherine are the parents of Trenton, born in May 1999, and Alexis, born in August 2000. Both parents have a history of substance abuse, and their relationship involved domestic violence. In February 2004, the children tested positive for exposure to methamphetamine and marijuana. The children were placed in the care of the maternal grandmother.
The children were adjudicated to be in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2003) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent's failure to supervise) and (o) (illegal drug present in child).
Michael was on probation for domestic abuse assault against Katherine. He absconded from his probation for a period of time, but was arrested in May 2004. He was placed in a residential treatment center, which he successfully completed. In December 2004, Michael was arrested for operating while intoxicated. This was a violation of his probation, and he was placed in jail for thirty days. He then entered a treatment program. A drug test in May 2005 showed Michael had relapsed. He had limited involvement with services after that time.
Katherine completed a substance abuse treatment program, but relapsed in August 2004. She subsequently entered an intensive outpatient program. In December 2004, Katherine pled guilty to a charge of forgery and she was placed on probation. She was soon picked up for a probation violation. Katherine admitted she had been using methamphetamine for the past six months, and had manufactured methamphetamine in her home. She entered a different residential substance abuse treatment program. She was unsuccessfully discharged, however, and in May 2005 she was sent to the violator's program at Mitchellville. She completed that program in October 2005.
In September 2005, the State filed a petition seeking termination of the parents' rights. At the hearing, the parents asked to have the children placed in a guardianship with the maternal grandmother. The juvenile court terminated the parents' rights under sections 232.116(1)(f) (2005) (child four or older, CINA, removed at least twelve months and cannot be safely returned home) and (l) (child CINA, parent has substance abuse problem, child cannot be returned within a reasonable time). The court found a guardianship would not be in the children's best interests, stating:
The parents concede that the children cannot be placed with them now, and are essentially asking for more time so that the children can be returned to them. The children have waited long enough for [Michael and Katherine] to place their children's needs above their own. They deserve permanency, and the best way for that to be established is for parents' parental rights to be terminated so that the children can be freed for adoption.
Michael and Katherine each appeal the termination order.
II. Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re R.E.K.F., 698 N.W.2d 147, 149 (Iowa 2005). 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 interest of the children. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence. A. Michael.
Michael asserts that the termination of his parental rights is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. At the termination hearing Michael admitted that the children could not be returned to his care at that time. Additionally, the evidence clearly shows the children could not be returned to Michael because he had not fully addressed his substance abuse problems. We conclude Michael's parental rights were properly terminated under section 232.116(1)(f). Because we have affirmed on this ground, we do not need to address the other ground cited by the juvenile court. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999).
B. Katherine.
Katherine claims the State did not present sufficient evidence to justify termination of her parental rights. She states that she cooperated with services, and that the children could be returned to her care. Katherine had a substantial history of drug addiction. Looking at Katherine's treatment history, we find it is unlikely the children could be returned to her care within a reasonable period of time. Katherine also remained unable to safely resume care of the children because she had not been able to remain drug-free outside of a prison setting. We determine her parental rights were properly terminated.
III. Best Interests
Michael and Katherine believe termination of their parental rights is not in the children's best interests. The evidence clearly shows it would not be in the best interests of the children to be returned to the parents' care. The parents were still addressing the issues of substance abuse and domestic violence.
At the termination hearing the parents asked to have the children placed in a guardianship with the maternal grandmother. They would like more time to address their substance abuse problems and to obtain stable employment. Section 232.116(3)(a) provides that the juvenile court may decide not to terminate a parent's rights if a relative has legal custody of the children. This section is permissive, not mandatory. In re C.L.H., 500 N.W.2d 449, 454 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993). "It is within the sound discretion of the juvenile court, based upon the unique circumstances before it and the best interests of the child, whether to apply this section." J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d at 781.
We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by deciding to terminate the parents' rights rather than place the children in a guardianship with the maternal grandmother. As the juvenile court noted, the parents are essentially just asking for more time. The children need permanency, and it is not in their best interests to wait longer for their parents to address their problems. See In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Iowa 1997).
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.