IN THE INTEREST OF C.H., 690 N.W.2d 701 (Iowa App. 2004)

No. 4-597 / 04-1050.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
September 9, 2004.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William A. Price, District Associate Judge.

A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her two children. AFFIRMED.

Bryan Tingle of Tingle, Knight, Webster Juckette, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and William Sales, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.

Christine Bisignano, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ.

HECHT, J.

Jeanakay is the mother of Collin, born February 18, 1999, and Brianna, born December 30, 2001. The family first came to the attention of the court on August 12, 2002, when Collin was found alone at a gas station three blocks from their home. Three days later, he was found unattended in a similar situation. The children were consequently removed from Jeanakay’s care and adjudicated as being in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b), (c)(2), and (n) (2001). The State later filed a petition seeking to terminate Jeanakay’s parental rights to the two children. Following a hearing, the district court terminated her rights under sections 232.116(1)(d), (f), (h), and (i) (2003). Jeanakay appeals.

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 children. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). While the district court terminated the parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we will affirm if at least one ground has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995).

On appeal, Jeanakay maintains the grounds upon which the court relied to terminate her parental rights were not proven by clear and convincing evidence. She also urges that termination was not in the best interests of the children.

Upon our de novo review of the record, we conclude the court properly terminated Jeanakay’s rights to Collin under section 232.116(1)(f) (child four or older, CINA, removed from home twelve of last eighteen months, and cannot be returned home) and her rights to Brianna under section 232.116(1)(h) (child three or younger, CINA, removed from home for six of last twelve months, and cannot be returned home). It is not disputed that Collin and Brianna are of the appropriate ages, have been adjudicated CINA, and have been removed from Jeanakay’s home for the requisite period of time.

As noted above, the family first came to the attention of authorities when Collin was found alone three blocks from home at a gas station. He was only returned home when a neighbor was able to identify him for police officers. Again, three days later Collin appeared at the gas station without supervision. Based on these incidents, and the fact he had a clump of hair missing and various bruises, he was removed from Jeanakay’s home. Clearly, Jeanakay’s ability to supervise and care for these children was a primary concern early on.

That concern continues to be an obstacle to reunification. In January of 2004, the Department of Human Services (DHS) learned that a sex offender by the name of Willie Green was registered as residing in Jeanakay’s home. Based on this discovery, the DHS worker required that Jeanakay’s visitation with the children be supervised and allowed only outside her home. Jeanakay initially denied Mr. Green resided with her, but later acknowledged that he would stay with her periodically. We concur in the concerns of the district court that Jeanakay is unable or unwilling to make appropriate choices as to whom her children should be exposed to. We are simply not convinced she will make better decisions in the future and shield them from dangerous or inappropriate individuals. Due to founded concerns about Collin’s and Brianna’s safety and stability, the court properly determined they could not be returned to Jeanakay’s care.

Even if the statutory requirements for termination are met, the decision to terminate must still be in the best interests of the children. In re N.H., 383 N.W.2d 570, 574 (Iowa 1986). In her “Report to the Court,” DHS worker Jennifer Norris stated that if returned to Jeanakay’s care, “Collin and Brianna would continue to be at risk due to [her] current, and ongoing, lifestyle. . . . Jeanakay has not demonstrated making appropriate choices in her life in order to keep her children safe.” Questions about Jeanakay’s judgment and abilities to supervise her children persist. At the time of the termination hearing, the children had been removed from Jeanakay’s care for twenty-one months. Her failure to significantly address and improve upon this concern, which has predominated since DHS first became involved, is quite significant. Collin is living with his father and Brianna is in a pre-adoptive home, placements which offer a stability and permanency that Jeanakay cannot provide. Accordingly, we conclude termination of her parental rights is in the best interests of the children, and therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED.