Opinion
No. 3-460 / 03-0739.
Filed June 25, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey A. Neary, Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child. AFFIRMED.
Robert Sikma, Sioux City, for appellant father.
Stephanie Forker Parry, of Forker Parry, Sioux City, for mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and David Dawson, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Michelle Dreibelbis, Juvenile Law Center, for minor child.
Considered by Zimmer, P. J., and Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child. He contends the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination was warranted pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b) (2003). He also argues termination is not in the best interest of the child, and the district court erred in its findings regarding the age of the child and the term of his prison sentence. We review his claims de novo. In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002).
The father's rights were terminated pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), (h), and (l). Section 232.116(1)(h) provides for termination of parental rights if:
(1) The child is three years of age or younger.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child's parents for at least six months of the last twelve months, or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child's parents as provided in section 232.102 at the present time.
There is no dispute these elements have been met. The child was three years old at the time of termination and was adjudicated in need of assistance on May 19, 2000. The child had been removed from the father's custody January 16, 2002, over one year before the termination hearing. Finally, the child cannot be returned to the father's care at the present time because he is currently incarcerated serving a term not to exceed five years. 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). Accordingly, we need not address the other grounds for which the court found termination was proper.
The father contends termination is not in his child's best interest. In determining the best interests of a child, the court looks to the child's long-range and immediate interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). The court must consider the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child in deciding to terminate parental rights. In re C.W., 554 N.W.2d 279, 282 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996).
We find termination is in the child's best interest. The father has a history of substance abuse for which he has not been successfully treated. In August 2001, the father assaulted the child's mother while in the presence of the child. The father is currently incarcerated as a result of the incident. Even if the father were released from prison, it is unlikely the child could safely be returned to his care. See In re A.Y.H., 508 N.W.2d 92, 94 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993) (" The parents' past performance is the best evidence for this determination because past performance is indicative of the quality of future care the child may receive.") The State has an obligation to establish child custody quickly so that children do not suffer indefinitely in parentless limbo. In re C.M., 652 N.W.2d 204, 211 (Iowa 2002). At some point, the rights and needs of the child rise above the rights and needs of the parent. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).