No. 5-482 / 05-0669Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed June 29, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Jane Mylrea, Associate Juvenile Judge.
Jason, a father, appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Timothy Goen, Dubuque, for appellant-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Fred H. McCaw, County Attorney, and Jean Becker, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Jamie Splinter, of Hughes Trannel, P.C., Dubuque, for the mother.
Jennifer Clemens-Conlon, of Reynolds Kenline, L.L.P., Dubuque, guardian ad litem for the child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
VAITHESWARAN, J.
Jason appeals the termination of his parental rights to Jalen, born in 2001. He contends termination is not in his son’s best interests, termination is unwarranted given the closeness of the parent-child relationship, and termination should be deferred in light of Jason’s commitment to an institution. See Iowa Code §232.116(3)(c), (e) (2003); In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492
(Iowa 2000). On our de novo review of the record, we are not persuaded by these contentions.
Jason acknowledged he had problems with alcohol abuse, domestic abuse, and parenting. As a result of these and other problems, Jalen was removed from the care of his parents in October 2003.[1] The parents cooperated with reunification services and, six months later, were reunited with their son.
Jalen remained with his parents for less than three months. In mid-2004, Jason informed the Department of Human Services that Jalen’s heavily intoxicated mother had taken the child. Jason also admitted he recently hit Jalen and consumed alcohol during trial visits. Jalen was removed a second time and placed in foster care for approximately five months.
Jason again made an effort to address his problems and Jalen was again returned to his care. This time the reunification was even more short-lived. Within a month, Jason assaulted Jalen’s mother and showed signs of intoxication. Jalen was removed for the third and final time.
Meanwhile, Jason pled guilty to domestic assault while displaying a dangerous weapon and received a five-year suspended sentence. At the time of the termination hearing, he was at a halfway house. He admitted Jalen could not be returned to his care as long as he was at the facility, but sought a delay in termination based on an anticipated release date of July 2005.
Two professionals recommended against such a delay. A service provider stated, “I don’t feel it would be fair because this case has been opened since October of 2003 and these are the issues we have been dealing with ongoing throughout the duration of the case.” Similarly a Department employee noted that the time lines had already been extended several times and Jalen had been out of Jason’s care for fourteen of the previous eighteen months.
Based on these recommendations, we agree with the juvenile court that immediate termination of Jason’s parental rights was warranted. Although there was evidence of bonding between father and son and Jason acted appropriately during supervised visits, he regressed when Jalen was placed in his care on an unsupervised basis. As the court noted, “there is no guarantee of either abstinence, stability, or ability to provide appropriate care and placement for the child.”
We conclude termination of Jason’s parental rights to Jalen was in Jalen’s best interests notwithstanding the existence of a bond or Jason’s imminent release from the half-way house.
AFFIRMED.
Huitink, J., concurs; Sackett, C.J., concurs specially without opinion.