Opinion
No. 2-470 / 01-1998.
Filed July 19, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, KARLA J. FULTZ, Associate Juvenile Judge.
C.B. and K.B. appeal the termination of their parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Tiffany Koenig and Christopher Kragnes, Sr., Des Moines, for appellant-mother.
Scott Bandstra, Des Moines, for appellant-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, M. Elise Pippin, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jon Anderson, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Pamela Vandel, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and HUITINK and HECHT, JJ.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings .
C.B. and K.B. appeal the termination of their parental rights. C.B. is the biological mother of S.B., born January 30, 1989, and S.B., born August 30, 1997. Her parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(f) (child four or older, adjudicated CINA, removed from home for twelve of last eighteen months, and cannot be returned home), (l) (child adjudicated CINA, parent has substance abuse problem, and child cannot be returned within reasonable time) (Supp. 2001). K.B. is the biological father of S.B., born August 30, 1997. His parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b) (abandonment), (e) (child adjudicated CINA and removed for six months, parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact), and (f) (child four or older, adjudicated CINA, removed from home for twelve of last eighteen months, and cannot be returned home).
The statutory grounds for termination included within section 232.116 were renumbered effective April 24, 2001.
On appeal C.B. argues the district court erred in terminating her parental rights because the State failed to prove any grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and termination was not in the children's best interests. She also contends that the court should not have terminated her rights because her children were in the custody of a relative and termination would be detrimental to them. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(a), (c) (2001). K.B. argues that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he abandoned his child or that S.B. could not be returned to her mother's custody, as required for termination under sections 232.116(1)(b) and (f) (Supp. 2001).
II. Standard of Review .
Our review in termination cases is de novo. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
III. Termination of C.B.'s Parental Rights .
We find that termination of C.B.'s parental rights was proper pursuant to section 232.116(1)(f). C.B. does not take issue with the first three requirements of this section, but contends the State failed to prove that her children could not be returned to her care by clear and convincing evidence. This requirement is met when a child cannot be returned to the parental home because the definitional grounds of a "child in need of assistance" still exist. In re A.B., 554 N.W.2d 291, 293-94 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996).
C.B.'s children were adjudicated to be children in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) (child receiving inadequate supervision) and (6)(n) (parent's drug or alcohol use prevents care of the child) (1997) following a founded report of failure to provide adequate shelter and C.B.'s arrest for possession of methamphetamine. The children have been out of her care for nineteen consecutive months. Since their removal, despite her asserted regular attendance at therapy and successful completion of substance abuse treatment, the evidence reflects that C.B. regularly failed to attend therapy and continued in her drug usage. Even more troublesome is C.B.'s demonstrated indifference to her children's welfare. Although C.B.'s elder child is clearly struggling to cope with the consequences of C.B.'s parental failures, C.B. has discouraged him from discussing his experiences or feelings with his therapist. There is evidence indicating she told him to "shut his mouth about anything he knows, for fear he'll be taken away from her home." C.B.'s therapist observed that C.B. consistently failed to place her children's welfare above her own, choosing instead to focus on her own needs and her desire to be reunited with her imprisoned spouse. Based on this evidence we conclude that circumstances have not sufficiently improved since the CINA adjudication to warrant a finding that the children could be safely returned to C.B.'s care.
Even if the statutory requirements for termination are established, the termination must still serve the best interests of the children. In determining their best interests, we look both to the children's long-range and immediate interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). We consider what the future likely holds for the children if they are returned to their parent. In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 493-94 (Iowa 1990). Insight for that determination may be gained from evidence of the parents' past performance, for that performance can be indicative of the quality of the future care that the parents are capable of providing. Id.
Upon our de novo review of the record, we conclude that termination of C.B.'s parental rights is in the best interests of the children. The children have been out of C.B.'s care for over a year and a half. Despite their asserted bond, C.B. lacks an understanding of appropriate parent-child interaction. She has placed enormous burdens on her elder child, requiring him to act as her confidant and the caregiver of his younger sibling. This has already been extremely detrimental to the welfare of both children and C.B. is seemingly unable to recognize the inappropriateness of her behavior. We will not force the children to wait any longer while C.B. attempts to become a suitable parent. See In re D.A., 506 N.W.2d 478, 479 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993) (crucial days of childhood cannot be suspended while parents experiment with ways to face up to own problems).
We lastly reject C.B.'s contention that termination was improper based on Iowa Code sections 232.116(3)(a) and (c) (2001) (court need not terminate parental rights if relative has custody or would be detrimental to child). Our court has found that a decision not to terminate under this code provision is within the discretion of the court, based upon the unique circumstances before it and the best interests of the child. In re C.L.H., 500 N.W.2d 449, 454 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993). We have already found that termination was in the children's best interests. The court's decision to terminate was well within its discretion.
IV. Termination of K.B.'s Parental Rights .
Although K.B. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting termination under sections 232.116(1)(b) and (f) (Supp. 2001), he does not challenge the district court's alternative ground for termination, section 232.116(1)(e). We therefore can affirm without addressing his arguments on appeal. See In re A.J., 553 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996) (where district court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we need only find grounds to terminate under one of the sections cited to affirm). Even if we were to conclude otherwise, the district court properly found K.B. abandoned S.B. as required for termination pursuant to section 232.116(1)(b).
We have repeatedly said parental responsibility includes more than a subjective interest in a child. In re S.K.C., 435 N.W.2d 403, 404 (Iowa Ct.App. 1988). Affirmative parenting is required to the extent practical and feasible. Id. This affirmative duty requires a continuing interest in the child and a genuine effort to maintain communication and association with the child. Id. K.B. was incarcerated during the majority of S.B.'s life and has not seen her in almost a year. K.B. has since made no attempt to contact or see his daughter. He has not had any contact with the department of human services and has not worked toward S.B.'s return. We find that this is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt showing K.B. abandoned his daughter and that his parental rights should be terminated.
The juvenile court decision is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.