Opinion
No. 3-036 / 02-1896
Filed February 12, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John G. Mullen, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
James Clements, Davenport, for appellant mother.
James Sothmann, Davenport, for father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, and Gerda Lane, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
John Molyneaux. Davenport, guardian ad litem for the minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P. J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (e), and (f) (Supp. 2001). She contends the juvenile court erred in concluding she was unable to resume custody of the child now or in the immediate future. We review her claim de novo. See In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002).
J.R. was placed in foster care on February 21. 2001. He had not reached his fifth birthday. The mother failed to appear at the termination hearing on October 10, 2002 and has not seen the child since March 13, 2002.
We need only find termination was proper under one ground to affirm. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). Only section 232.116(1)(f) requires that the State prove by clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned home. The mother does not advance any arguments that termination was improper under sections 232.116(b) and (e). Even so, termination was clearly proper under section 232.116(1)(f). At the time of termination, the mother had only participated in two out of thirty-nine possible visitations with her child. The visitations were then terminated because of the negative impact they created upon the child. The mother had not had contact with the Department of Human Services for the six months prior to termination. She did not participate in substance abuse services, domestic violence services, mental health services, or parenting classes as directed. The district court concluded:
If placed in the mother's custody, the child would be subject to a high risk of adjudicatory harm in the nature of physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, failure of supervision and inappropriate parenting. The Court further concludes that additional services would serve no beneficial purpose towards reunification given the mother's failure or refusal to participate in services over the past two years.
The evidence in the record supports this conclusion. The statutory time requirement under section 232.116(1)(f) had been met, and therefore, termination was appropriate. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000) (holding children should not be forced to endlessly await the maturity of a natural parent.). Any action the mother has taken since the time of termination is outside of the record and will not be considered on appeal.