Opinion
No. 3-167 / 02-2091.
Filed March 12, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, WILLIAM S. OWENS, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals from the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
John Silko, Bloomfield, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Karen Woltman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Jeffrey Logan, Ottumwa, for appellee-mother.
Samuel Erhardt, Ottumwa, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Kenneth W. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughter, S.W. He contends termination of his parental rights is not in S.W.'s best interests. We affirm.
S.W., born August 15, 2000, is the daughter of Kenneth W. and Carla B. Carla has four older children from a previous relationship. In April 2000, Carla's children were adjudicated children in need of assistance after Kenneth physically abused Carla's five-year-old son. Kenneth picked up the boy by inserting his fingers in the boy's ears and then dropped him. The juvenile court ordered no contact between Kenneth and the children. In January of 2001, S.W. was adjudicated a child in need of assistance because Carla had left the children in Kenneth's care where they were abused. Carla had also failed to comply with drug screening. Throughout these proceedings, Kenneth has never had custody of S.W.
In January of 2002, the State filed a petition to terminate Kenneth's parental rights to S.W. Following hearing, the juvenile court terminated Kenneth's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) (child CINA for physical or sexual abuse (or neglect), circumstances continue despite receipt of services) and (h) (child is three or younger, child CINA, removed from home for six of last twelve months, and child cannot be returned home) (Supp. 2001) by order entered December 10, 2002. Kenneth appeals.
We review termination of parental rights orders de novo. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1993). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
Kenneth does not challenge the grounds upon which termination was based, but claims termination is not in S.W.'s best interests. Even if the statutory requirements for termination are met, the decision to terminate must still be in the best interest of the child. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994).
Kenneth contends the relationship he has developed with S.W. since his release from prison warrants preservation of the parent-child relationship. He points out that he has paid child support for S.W. in addition to providing her with food, clothing, and other support. Kenneth also cites two instances where he protected S.W. by alerting the Department of Human Services to Carla's conduct which presented a substantial risk of harm to S.W. Finally, he argues that he has overcome those issues relating to his physical abuse of children through extensive and voluntary psychological treatment.
Based on our de novo review of the record, we find termination of Kenneth's parental rights was appropriate. Kenneth has a lengthy history of physical abuse towards children dating back to 1991, which need not be repeated here. The month of S.W.'s birth, Kenneth was sentenced to prison for willfully injuring Carla's son. He was released in February 2002. Despite his self-proclaimed improvement in coping with anger issues, a founded child abuse report indicated Kenneth grabbed his grandson by the throat and shook him on June 30, 2002 after the grandson sneezed on Kenneth's arm. Kenneth's participation in services has been inconsistent and he continues to minimize the seriousness of his prior abusive behavior. Absent from the record is any evidence suggesting Kenneth can adequately care for his daughter. The record reveals S.W. is a child with special needs who requires a caretaker with considerable patience.
Clear and convincing evidence establishes that the termination of Kenneth's parental rights was in S.W.'s best interests. See C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 492.