No. 3-079 / 02-2090Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed February 12, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, Robert J. Dull, Judge.
Parents appeal the order terminating their parental rights to two children. AFFIRMED.
Joseph W. Flannery, LeMars, for appellant father.
Chad Thompson, of Metcalf, Thompson Phipps, Kinsley, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Darin J. Raymond, County Attorney, and Amy Oetken, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
John Polifka of the Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
VOGEL, P.J.
Antoinette and Joshua are the parents of Austin, born March 14, 2000, and Aidan, born April 10, 2001. On November 20. 2000, Austin was adjudicated in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c) and (g) by stipulation of the parties. Aidan was likewise adjudicated CINA on April 29, 2002. Following a hearing on the State’s subsequent petition, the juvenile court terminated the parents’ rights to both children pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (Supp. 2001). Antoinette and Joshua appeal from this order.
We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824
(Iowa 1991). Our primary concern is the best interests of the childre . In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
On appeal Antoinette contends (1) the termination is not supported by clear and convincing evidence, (2) termination is not in the children’s best interests, and (3) termination would be detrimental to the children due to the closeness of their relationship and their placement with relatives. Joshua asserts the statutory requirements for termination were not met by clear and convincing evidence.
As an initial matter, we decline to address Antoinette’s contention termination was improper due to the closeness of their relationship and the children’s placement with relatives. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c), These issues were neither raised below nor addressed by the court in its termination ruling. In re C.D., 508 N.W.2d 97, 100 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993).
On our de novo review we conclude the State presented clear and convincing evidence supporting the statutory elements for termination and that termination is in Austin’s and Aidan’s best interests. As noted, Antoinette’s and Joshua’s parental rights were terminated under section 232.116(1)(h) which requires clear and convincing evidence that the child (1) is three or younger, (2) has been adjudicated CINA, (3) has been removed from the parent’s custody for at least six of the last twelve months, and (4) cannot be returned to the custody of the parents. Antoinette’s life is marked by extreme instability and a distinct immaturity. She puts her own desires above the well being of her children and failed to internalize the parenting education offered to her. Joshua appears to be addicted to drugs and at critical times during the last two years his whereabouts were unknown. He has not demonstrated a commitment to raising his children. The record contains clear and convincing evidence that neither Austin nor Aidan can be returned to their parents’ home, and we therefore agree with the trial court termination is in their best interests.
AFFIRMED.