No. 4-336 / 04-0538.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
June 9, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, James A. Weaver, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Steven Kundel, Muscatine, for appellant-mother.
Thomas Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, Gary Allison, County Attorney, and Korie Shippee, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Robert DeKock, Muscatine, for father.
Neva Rettig-Baker, Muscatine, guardian ad litem for the child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Hecht and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
VAITHESWARAN, J.
Selena is the mother of Talon, born in November 1996. Selena has been a victim of abuse since childhood and has perpetrated and exposed Talon to similar abuse.
Talon was adjudicated a child in need of assistance based on his exposure to domestic violence and Selena’s failure to supervise him. Following his removal, he was placed in foster care, then with his father, and finally with his paternal grandmother. The district court ultimately terminated Selena’s parental rights to Talon pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(a) (2003) (consent of parent), (e) (absence of significant and meaningful contact), and (f) (child cannot be returned to home). On our de novo review, we find clear and convincing evidence to support termination under section 232.116(1)(f). See In re A.J., 553 N.W.2d 909, 911
(Iowa Ct.App. 1996) (stating we may affirm if we find evidence to support any single ground cited by district court).
The Department of Human Services reported that Talon lived with domestic violence for forty-two months. The effect on him was marked. He became “destructive and a difficult child to manage.” He was “defiant with authority figures” and showed “no guilt or remorse.” Although Selena now contends she has severed ties with the perpetrator of this violence, the termination record does not contain this information and, indeed, suggests the opposite. For example, around the time of the permanency hearing, Selena’s husband informed his probation officer that he had twice violated an order prohibiting contact with Selena. He also told the officer that, as the order had since expired, he intended to move in with her.
On this record, we concur with the Department’s recommendation that Selena was “not an appropriate placement option for Talon. . . .” As one report noted, “[s]he is not willing or able to assure that Talon would be safe in her care due to the choices she makes.”
We affirm the district court’s termination of Selena’s parental rights to Talon.
AFFIRMED.