Opinion
No. 4-792 / 04-1467
Filed December 8, 2004
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary L. Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals from a juvenile court order which terminated his parental rights to his son. AFFIRMED.
Patrick T. Parry of Forker and Parry, Sioux City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas S. Mullin, County Attorney, and Cindy Weber-Blair, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Lesley Rynell of the Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Loyalle S. appeals from a juvenile court order which terminated his parental rights to his son. He contends there is not clear and convincing evidence to support termination of his parental rights. He also claims termination is not in the child's best interests. Upon our de novo review, we affirm the juvenile court's decision.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Jacqueline G. and Loyalle S. are the unmarried parents of a son, J.S., born February 16, 2004. J.S. was born six weeks premature and placed in neonatal intensive care. Jacqueline left the hospital two days after giving birth. She never returned to the hospital to visit her child or inquire about his welfare. Likewise, Loyalle did not visit his son in the hospital.
On February 23, the juvenile court issued an order removing J.S. from parental custody because of concerns regarding his mother's ability to care for him. The record reveals the court's concerns were well founded. Jacqueline has a lengthy history of alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and criminal activity. She also has a history of homelessness and chronic unemployment. The mother has had her parental rights terminated to five other children.
On February 25, J.S. was discharged from the hospital and placed directly in foster care. Following a combined removal/adjudicatory hearing held April 20, 2004, the court found that neither parent was cooperating with services and the parents were missing scheduled visits with their newborn son. The court further found that the parents were not involved in chemical dependency treatment, were not submitting to random drug testing, and were not maintaining contact with the Department of Human Services regarding their son's welfare. Based on these and other findings the court adjudicated J.S. as a child in need of assistance (CINA).
On May 6, 2004, the State filed a petition to terminate Jacqueline and Loyalle's parental rights to J.S. Neither the father nor the mother showed up for a dispositional hearing held June 22, 2004. The court found that both parents had abandoned their son and ordered that custody of J.S. remain with the Department with placement in family foster care.
Following a termination hearing held on August 30, 2004, the juvenile court entered an order terminating the father's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) (child CINA for physical or sexual abuse or neglect, circumstances continue to exist despite receipt of services), (e) (child adjudicated CINA, removed from home for at least six consecutive months, and parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact), and (h) (child three or younger, CINA, removed from home for six of the last twelve months, and cannot be returned home) (2003). The mother's parental rights were also terminated. Only the father has appealed.
II. Scope of Review
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1993). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2001). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
III. Discussion
On appeal, the father claims the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. He also claims termination is not in his son's best interests. We find no merit in either contention.
The juvenile court terminated Loyalle's parental rights on several statutory grounds including section 232.116(1)(h) (child three or younger, CINA, removed from home for six of the last twelve months, and cannot be returned home). Loyalle has a history of violence, mental health, and substance abuse issues. Evidence presented at the termination hearing revealed Loyalle has been unable to maintain employment or stable housing. Loyalle has refused or failed to follow through with mental health treatment. We conclude the State has proven by clear and convincing evidence that J.S. could not be safely returned to his father's care at the time of the termination hearing or at any point in the foreseeable future. Because we have found the State proved the grounds for termination under section 232.116(1)(h), we need not determine whether it also proved grounds for termination under the other statutory provisions relied on by the juvenile court to terminate Loyalle's parental rights. See A.J., 553 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996) (stating we may affirm if there is evidence to support any ground cited by the juvenile court).
Even if the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights are met, the decision to terminate must be in the child's best interests. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). J.S. has been in family foster care since his birth. He has no bond with either of his parents. Moreover, the child's guardian ad litem recommends that Loyalle's parental rights be terminated. J.S. needs a safe, stable, nurturing, and permanent home now, not at some point in the future. Termination of Loyalle's parental rights is clearly in his son's best interests.