Opinion
No. 3-573 / 03-0985.
Filed July 23, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Constance Cohen, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother and father appeal from the termination of their parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Debra Hockett-Clark of Hockett-Clark Law Offices, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Christopher Kragnes, Des Moines, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Celene Coffman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Victoria Meade, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, JJ.
Jolanda and Allen are the parents of five children. The children were removed from the home in February 2001 due to the parents' arrests for domestic violence. The children were returned to Jolanda's care, but were removed again in September 2002, after another physical confrontation between the parents. The children were placed with various relatives.
In March 2003 the State filed a petition to terminate the parents' rights. The juvenile court terminated the parents' rights to all the children under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d) (2003) and to one child under section 232.116(1)(h). Allen's parental rights were also terminated under section 232.116(1)(l). The court noted the "mother had a criminal history of child endangerment and drug offenses; father had extensive criminal history involving drugs and assault and had displayed a gun during a recent assault against the mother in the presence of the children." The parents appeal.
I. 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 S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999).
II. Jolanda claims the State did not present sufficient evidence to show the children could not be returned to her care. The evidence shows the parents are involved in a violent relationship, and this has been detrimental to the children. Due to the high level of violence in the home, the children would be at serious risk of harm if returned to Jolanda's care.
III. Both parents claim termination of their parental rights was not in the children's best interests. They point out that the children are living with relatives and that under section 232.116(3) termination of parental rights was not mandatory in these circumstances.
Under section 232.116(3)(a), the juvenile court need not terminate the parental relationship if a relative has legal custody of a child. Section 232.116(3) has been interpreted to be permissive, not mandatory. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). 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. Id. We must consider a child's long-range and immediate best interests. Id.
We find the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in this case. The court considered this issue and gave sound reasons for terminating the parents' rights. The court noted, "While the children will always know who their parents are, all family members involved will know who is in control if parental rights are terminated and the children are adopted."
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.