Opinion
No. 3-819 / 03-1539
Filed November 17, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William S. Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.
E.P. appeals from the termination of his parental rights to J.A.P. AFFIRMED.
John Silko, Bloomfield, for appellant-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, Mark Tremmel, County Attorney, and Karen Woltman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Lloyd Keith of Keith Law Firm, P.C., Ottumwa, for mother.
Kenneth Ketterhagen, for paternal grandmother.
Gayla Harrison of Harrison, McKay, Moreland Webber, P.C., Ottumwa, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Mahan and Eisenhauer, JJ.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Edward and Christina are the parents of Jessi, born in November 1999. In July 2002 the Department of Human Services sought to remove the child from Edward's care because he was living with a known sex offender. Edward agreed to voluntarily place Jessi in foster care, but then absconded with the child to Missouri. Jessi was soon retrieved and placed in foster care. He was adjudicated to be a child in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (d) (Supp. 2001).
Jessi's mother consented to termination of her parental rights. Neither parent has provided much of Jessi's care throughout his life. He spent much of his life in the care of the paternal grandmother.
Jessi has significant developmental delays. Edward participated in services, but made very little progress. Edward was unable to redirect Jessi's behavior, did not set limits for him during visits, and sometimes "spaced off" during visits, so that he had to be prompted to interact with Jessi. Christina testified Edward was physically abusive to her during their relationship. She did not believe Edward could be an appropriate caretaker for Jessi.
In April 2003 the State filed a petition seeking termination of parental rights. The juvenile court terminated Edward's rights under sections 232.116(1)(g) (2003) (parent's rights to another child were terminated and parent does not respond to services) and (h) (child cannot be safely returned home). The court found Edward had made minimal progress in improving his parenting skills. The court also determined termination of Edward's parental rights was in Jessi's best interests. Edward appealed.
Edward's parental rights to another child had been terminated in previous proceedings.
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).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Edward claims the State did not present sufficient evidence to justify termination of his parental rights. We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the juvenile court's decision. The social workers involved in this case testified Edward made minimal progress in improving his parenting skills. He remained unable to identify safety issues. Edward did not believe it was dangerous to expose Jessi to a known sex offender. Also, Edward did not provide appropriate stimulation and interaction with Jessi, which was a factor leading to Jessi's developmental delays.
IV. Best Interests
Edward contends termination of his parental rights is not in Jessi's best interests. In looking at a child's best interests, we consider the child's long-range, as well as immediate, interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). We find termination is in Jessi's best interests. Edward is unable to meet Jessi's needs to help him overcome his developmental delays.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.