IN THE INTEREST OF K.A.O., 662 N.W.2d 372 (Iowa App. 2003)

No. 2-1053 / 02-1898Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed January 15, 2003

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Michael J. Newmeister, District Associate Judge.

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

Richard Pazdernik, Jr., Cedar Rapids, for appellant-mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Lance Heeren, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.

Lucy Harrington, Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for minor child.

Robert Kimm, Cedar Rapids, for father.

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

ZIMMER, J.

Jennifer O. is the mother of Kimberly O., born on December 12, 2000. On February 15, 2001, the juvenile court adjudicated Kimberly to be a child in need of assistance (CINA). Following a dispositional hearing held April 20, 2001, Kimberly remained in Jennifer’s care with the aid of service providers and a visiting nurse. On December 17, 2001, a removal hearing was held and Kimberly was removed from her mother’s care and placed in the same foster home as her older sister. She has remained in foster care ever since.

On July 22, 2002, the State filed a petition to terminate Jennifer’s parental rights to Kimberly. Following a trial, the court terminated Jennifer’s parental rights to her daughter pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(g) and (h) (Supp. 2001). The court also terminated the parental rights of Kimberly’s father, Michael S. This appeal by Jennifer followed.

We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824
(Iowa 1991). While the district court terminated Jennifer’s parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we will affirm if at least one ground has been proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). Our primary concern is the best interests of the childre . In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).

In order to support the termination under section 232.116(1)(g), the State had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the court has previously adjudicated the child to be in need of assistance, (2) the court has terminated parental rights with respect to another child who is a member of the same family, (3) the parent continues to lack the ability or willingness to respond to services which would correct the situation, and (4) an additional period of rehabilitation would not correct the situation. Based on our de novo review of the record, we conclude the juvenile court properly terminated Jennifer’s parental rights under the authority of this provision.

Jennifer was born in 1980. She is a high school dropout. Jennifer receives social security disability for reasons relating to a learning disability. She is a poor problem solver and has limited ability to learn new things. Jennifer has two other children, Keith O., a son born in March of 1998, and Sue S., a daughter born in January of 2000. Keith and Sue were adjudicated children in need of assistance in June 2000. Jennifer’s parental rights to Sue were terminated in June 2002. The parental rights of Sue’s father, Michael S., were also terminated at that time. Jennifer’s son, Keith, resides with his father, Dustin J., under the protective supervision of the Department of Human Services.

Kimberly was removed from Jennifer’s care in December 2001 after it became apparent that Jennifer simply could not provide her daughter with minimally adequate care. Jennifer began receiving services in May 2000. Since that time, she has been provided with extensive services in an attempt to provide her with a basic knowledge of child development and adequate parenting skills. Despite the receipt of these services, Jennifer remains unable to care for a child on a day-to-day basis. Even with assistance, Jennifer finds the prospect of parenting any child overwhelming. We conclude the circumstances which initially led to the CINA adjudication continue to exist. An additional period of rehabilitation would not correct the situation. Accordingly, we find termination is in Kimberly’s best interests, and therefore affirm the order terminating Jennifer’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED.