IN RE S.R., 705 N.W.2d 507 (Iowa App. 2005)

No. 05-1171Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed August 31, 2005

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karla Fultz, Associate Juvenile Judge.

S.R., Sr. appeals from the termination of his parental rights.AFFIRMED.

Edward Bull, Des Moines, for appellant.

Marla Suddreth, Bondurant, for mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Faye Jenkins, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.

Christine Bisignano, West Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Zimmer, JJ.

ZIMMER, J.

S.R., Sr., father of S.R., Jr., appeals from a juvenile court order that terminated his parental rights. Upon our de novo review, we affirm.

I. Background Facts Proceedings
S.R., Jr. was born on January 21, 2004. He was removed from the care of his mother, T.A., only two days later and placed in foster care because T.A. tested positive for methamphetamines while pregnant. S.R., Sr. was incarcerated at the time of removal.

The State filed a petition for child in need of assistance (CINA) on January 26, 2004, citing the grounds of parental drug abuse and failure to supervise. The court adjudicated S.R., Jr. CINA on March 15, 2004. The mother and father made only sporadic attempts to participate in the services offered to them, and on February 14, 2005, the State filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of both parents. The court terminated the parental rights of T.A. and S.R., Sr. on a variety of statutory grounds in an order entered July 11, 2005. Only S.R., Sr. has pursued an appeal.

II. Scope of Review
The scope of review for termination proceedings is de novo. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1993). The grounds for termination must be supported by clear and convincing evidence In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). We are primarily concerned with the child’s best interests in termination proceedings. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000); In re R.R.K., 544 N.W. 2d 274, 275 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995).

III. Discussion
S.R., Sr. does not challenge any of the statutory grounds for termination relied on by the juvenile court. His sole contention on appeal is that it is not in the best interests of S.R., Jr. to terminate his parental rights. The father’s brief states that he “does not believe that the termination of his parental rights thus depriving him of the opportunity to be involved in S.R., Jr.’s life is a fair punishment for previous, poor choices.”

Even if the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights are met, the decision to terminate must still be in the best interests of the child. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400
(Iowa 1994). In considering a child’s best interests, we look to the child’s long-range as well as immediate best interests. In re C.K., 588 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997).

S.R., Sr. has a lengthy criminal history. As we have already mentioned, the father was incarcerated during the removal process. Following his release from a correctional facility, he failed to comply with drug testing and did not meaningfully participate in services ordered by the court. S.R., Sr. has had no contact with his son since December 2004. Even though S.R., Sr. was properly notified of the termination proceedings, he did not attend the termination hearing. S.R., Jr. has been in foster care since his birth. His parents have abandoned him.

The record makes clear that the juvenile court did not terminate the father’s parental rights to punish him. Instead, the court terminated S.R., Sr.’s parental rights because the statutory grounds for termination were met, and termination of the father’s parental rights is clearly in S.R., Jr.’s best interests. We affirm the ruling of the juvenile court.

AFFIRMED.