IN RE J.L., 713 N.W.2d 249 (Iowa App. 2006)

No. 6-054 / 05-2060Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed February 15, 2006

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Darrell J. Goodhue, Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his three children. AFFIRMED.

Jane White of Parrish, Kruidenier, Moss, Dunn, Boles, Gribble
Cook, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant-father.

Victoria Meade, West Des Moines, for appellee-mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Wayne M. Reisetter, County Attorney, and Sean Wieser, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.

Jason Hauser, Des Moines, guardian ad litem, for minor children.

Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.

VAITHESWARAN, J.

Harold appeals the termination of his parental rights to Jordan, born in 1998, Nicole, born in 1999, and Bradley, born in 2002. He contends: (1) the record lacks clear and convincing evidence to support termination under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b) (2005) (abandonment), (1)(e) (absence of significant and meaningful contact), and (1)(f) and (h) (child cannot be returned to parent’s custody); (2) the district court should have afforded him additional time to “demonstrate his commitment to his children”; and (3) termination was not in his children’s best interests. Our review of these issues is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4.

1. It is established that we may affirm if there is clear and convincing evidence to support any of the grounds cited by the district court. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). In his written closing argument, Harold conceded “that the children have been out of his care for the requisite period of time and cannot be returned to his care at this time.” Termination was warranted under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(f) and (h).

2. Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b) allows a court to grant parents additional time to re-unify with their children. Harold’s prospects for reunification were bleak. He was incarcerated for a significant portion of these proceedings. The charges included manufacture of drugs with intent to deliver, violation of parole, second-degree burglary, and conspiracy to commit a felony.[1] Prior to his incarceration, Harold threatened to kill the children’s mother and use weapons against the family. At the termination hearing, his attorney informed the court that Harold was presently in jail, had “entered a guilty plea on a drug-related charge,” and was scheduled to be sentenced the following week. She mentioned the possibility of probation but also confirmed that the crime carried a five-year prison term. She estimated that Harold would serve eight to nine months of that term, if imprisoned. We conclude a deferral of termination would not have assisted Harold in reuniting with his children.

3. The ultimate question is whether termination would serve the children’s best interests. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492
(Iowa 2000). Given Harold’s threats of violence towards the family and his self-imposed absences, we conclude termination was in the children’s best interests.

AFFIRMED.