No. 5-506 / 05-0823Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed July 13, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William S. Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her two sons. AFFIRMED.
Mary Baird Krafka of Krafka Law Office, Ottumwa, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Mark Tremmel, County Attorney, and Jason Helm, Assistant County County, for appellee.
Cynthia Hucks of Box Box, Ottumwa, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
SACKETT, C.J.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her two sons. She contends termination is not in the best interest of the children because the court did not continue the hearing and the court should have granted her motion to hold the record open for seven days to allow her to make a further record. On de novo review we affirm.
Sonata is the mother of Thadeus, born in 1999, and Tytus, born in 2002.[1] The children were removed from her care in August 2003 because of her substance abuse and failure to provide adequate supervision. They remained in foster care throughout the pendency of this case. After the children’s removal, Sonata participated in substance abuse treatment and was successfully discharged in January 2004. Visitation was unsupervised. After a positive test for marijuana use in June 2004, visitation again was supervised. The State petitioned to terminate Sonata’s parental rights. The court denied the petition in February 2005. Following that order, Sonata stopped participating in services and visitation. In late March 2005 the State again petitioned to terminate Sonata’s parental rights. Following a hearing in May, at which Sonata did not appear, the court terminated her parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2005) as to Thadeus and 232.116(1)(h) as to Tytus.
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1993). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000).
Sonata’s contentions on appeal both focus on the best interest of the children. She contends termination of her parental rights was not in the best interest of her children (1) because the court denied her oral motion to continue the hearing, and (2) because it denied her request to keep the record open for seven days to allow her to present evidence. In support of her contentions, Sonata cites four cases that all say generically, termination must be in the best interest of the children. She does not argue why the court should have granted her motion to continue or her motion to keep the record open. She does not assert why the court’s actions were not in the best interest of the children. After the juvenile court’s denial of the first petition to terminate her parental rights, Sonata moved to another city, stopped participating in services, and had no further contact with her children. Even though she had notice, she did not attend the hearing on the second petition to terminate her parental rights. We conclude her contentions on appeal are without merit and affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.