Opinion
No. 3-262 / 03-0303.
Filed April 30, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, KARLA J. FULTZ, Associate Juvenile Judge.
K.K. appeals from the termination of his parental rights to his minor son. AFFIRMED.
Bryan Tingle of Tingle, Knight, Webster Juckette, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, Steve Bayens, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Karen Taylor of Law Offices of Taylor Ristau, Des Moines, for mother.
Jacqueline Rypma, Des Moines, for minor child.
Considered by MAHAN, P.J., and MILLER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Kham and Monica are the parents of Justin, who was born in May 1997. Kham was in prison during much of Justin's life due to convictions for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, failure to affix a drug tax stamp, and assault while participating in a felony. Kham was paroled in September 2002 and transferred to an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) facility. Kham is in the United States as an undocumented person.
The State filed a petition to terminate the parents' rights. Monica voluntarily consented to the termination of her parental rights. The juvenile court found:
The child's father, Kham . . . has been incarcerated throughout the pendency of this matter. By his own actions he has made himself unavailable for services, although he did access some services in prison. He did not complete drug treatment. Justin has no relationship with his father. [Kham] has not provided either financial or emotional support to his son. . . . Both parents have extensive criminal histories. Neither is available to parent their child.
Kham's parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(a), (d), (f), (j), and (l) (Supp. 2001). He appeals.
I. The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999).
II. Kham was not present for the termination hearing, either in person or by telephone. At the time of the termination hearing on November 1, 2002, Kham had been recently moved by the INS and he had not yet contacted his attorney from his new location. Kham's attorney sought a continuance so Kham could participate in the proceedings. The district court denied this request but left the record open to take evidence on Kham's behalf.
We review a motion for continuance under an abuse of discretion standard and will reverse only if injustice will result to the party desiring the continuance. In re C.W., 554 N.W.2d 279, 281 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). Denial of a motion to continue must be unreasonable under the circumstances before we will reverse. Id. The juvenile court is not obligated to grant a continuance because "children simply cannot wait for responsible parenting." In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 1990).
We find the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kham's motion to continue the termination hearing. Kham knew the date of the termination hearing, but did not contact his attorney. We also note the termination order was not filed until January 28, 2003. Kham had ample opportunity to present evidence after the hearing, but did not do so.
III. Kham asserts there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the termination of his parental rights. When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we need only find grounds to terminate under one of the sections cited by the juvenile court to affirm. In re A.J., 553 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). We determine Kham's parental rights were properly terminated under section 232.116(1)(f).
There is clear and convincing evidence in the record to show Justin could not be placed in Kham's care at the present time. Justin does not have a relationship with Kham because Kham was in prison during most of Justin's life. It is not clear whether Kham will be able to stay in the United States or if he will be deported. Even if Kham remains here, he does not have a home, a job, or the parenting skills to care for his son.
Even if the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights are met, the decision to terminate must still be in the best interests of the child. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 389, 400 (Iowa 1994). We find termination of Kham's parental rights is in Justin's best interests. Kham is not in a position to be able to meet Justin's needs.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.