Opinion
No. 2-338 / 02-0275
Filed April 10, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, David S. Good, Judge.
Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter. AFFIRMED.
John Hedgecoth of Terpstra, Epping Willett, Cedar Rapids, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, Denver D. Dillard, County Attorney, and Kelly Kaufman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Nick Gloe of Faches, Gloe Quint, Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Eisenhauer, JJ.
On February 5, 2002, the district court terminated the parental rights of the appellant mother, Joan, to minor child Roxanne, who was born on June 21, 1999. It terminated Joan's rights under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(c) and 232.116(1)(f) (2001) based on, among other things, concerns about her lack of responsibility and commitment to learn basic parenting skills, her resistance to help, and her continuing contact with Roxanne's abusive father, James, who has a history of criminal activities. Joan appeals the termination, contending the State failed to prove the termination grounds by clear and convincing evidence and that it failed to show the termination was necessary. Under our de novo review, in which our primary consideration is the child's best interests, In re J.J.S., 628 N.W.2d 25, 28 (Iowa Ct.App. 2001), we affirm.
While the district court terminated the parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we only need to find grounds to terminate parental rights under one of the sections cited by the district court in order to affirm its ruling. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). We conclude the court properly terminated Joan's parental rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(c) which requires that: (1) the court has previously adjudicated the child to be in need of assistance after finding the child has been physically or sexually abused or neglected; and (2) the parents were offered services to correct the circumstances which led to the adjudication, but the circumstance continues to exist.
Roxanne was removed from her home by emergency removal order on March 14, 2000, and placed in foster care. At an April 27 hearing, on Joan's stipulation Roxanne was adjudicated as a child in need of assistance pursuant to sections 232.2(6)(b) and 232.2(6)(c)(2) (1999). The record shows Joan was provided with numerous services, but that she was resistant to suggestion, combative with the care providers, and failed to internalize what the providers were teaching. She did not recognize the need to protect Roxanne from James, judged by her continuing contact with him. This relationship with James clearly placed Roxanne at risk of sexual or physical abuse.
We also recognize that termination is not mandatory upon a finding that all of the applicable statutory elements have been met. In re E.B.L., 501 N.W.2d 547, 552 (Iowa 1993). In addition to meeting the statutory requirements for termination, the termination must be in the best interest of the child. In re T.Q., 519 N.W.2d 105, 106 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994) (citing In re B.G.C., 496 N.W.2d 239, 245 (Iowa 1992)). We reject Joan's suggestion termination was not in Roxanne's best interest. Roxanne has been in foster care for most of her life and deserves permanency. Joan has not made the effort or progress needed to resume Roxanne's care. We affirm the district court's conclusion termination is in Roxanne's best interest.
Accordingly, we affirm the order terminating Joan's parental rights to her daughter Roxanne.
AFFIRMED.