Opinion
No. 2-1022 / 02-1815
Filed January 15, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Nancy A. Baumgartner, District Associate Judge.
Father appeals the order terminating his parental rights to his child. AFFIRMED.
Henry Keyes, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, Denver Dillard, County Attorney, and Lance J. Heeren, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.
Judith Amsler, Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Ezra B. is the father and Robin K. is the mother of Breytin K., born October 1, 2001. Breytin was born with several serious medical conditions. The child was removed from his mother's care November 29, 2001 when his mother failed to complete the necessary medical training to care for her son. Breytin was adjudicated to be in need of assistance, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2 (2001) on January 16, 2002.
On June 18, 2002, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate the mother's and father's parental rights to Breytin. Following a trial, the court terminated Ezra's parental rights to Breytin pursuant to section 232.116(1)(h) (Supp. 2001). The mother's parental rights were also terminated. The court placed the children's custody with the Department of Human Services (DHS) for placement by adoption or other permanent placement. Ezra has appealed.
Formerly Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g) (2001).
We review termination of parental rights 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).
Ezra contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. In order to terminate Ezra's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h), the State was required to prove (1) the child was three years of age or younger, (2) he had been adjudicated a child in need of assistance, (3) he had been removed from his parent's physical custody for at least six of the last twelve months, or for the last six months, and (4) there is clear and convincing evidence he cannot be returned to his father's care at the present time.
Breytin was conceived following a brief relationship between his parents. Ezra was incarcerated in Texas at the time of the termination hearing. He has taken parenting and life skills classes while incarcerated. Ezra has never met his son. He hopes to be released from jail on February 19, 2003. He plans to return to Iowa after his release where he will be on probation on a forgery charge. On our de novo review, we conclude the State has proven the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. The whereabouts of Breytin's mother are unknown and his father is in jail in Texas. There is no parental home to which the child can be returned.
Ezra also contends termination is not in Breytin's best interests. Even if Ezra were released from jail on February 19, 2003, he would not be able to assume custody of his son immediately upon release. Breytin has never met his father. Ezra would need to return to Iowa, get a job, secure housing, establish a relationship with his son, and demonstrate stability. We agree with the trial court's conclusion that Breytin should not have to languish in foster care for another year while waiting to see if his father can become a responsible adult. We also conclude that termination of Ezra's parental rights is in Breytin's best interest. We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.