No. 3-103 / 02-1902.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed February 28, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Edward H. Jacobson, Judge.
Mother and father appeal from the juvenile court order terminating their parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Judith Garnos Huitink, Sioux City, for appellant-mother.
William Binkard, South Sioux City, Nebraska, for appellant-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, and Dewey Sloan, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Marchelle Denker of the Sioux City Juvenile Office, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ. Huitink, J., takes no part.
ZIMMER, J.
Brent S. is the putative father and Melissa L. is the mother of S.L., born May 3, 2001. Melissa is also the mother of D.R., born July 30, 1999. Dana R. is D.R.’s father. S.L and D.R. were initially removed from Melissa’s custody on June 18, 2001 following her arrest for possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of methamphetamine. The children were adjudicated as children in need of assistance on August 31, 2001. S.L. and D.R. were returned to Melissa’s care after June 28, 2001 when she entered the Women and Children’s Center for treatment. The children were again removed on October 23, 2001 after Melissa tested positive for methamphetamine. The children have never been returned to her custody.
On August 5, 2002, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of Brent, Melissa, Dana, and another possible father of S.L., Michael D. Following trial, the court terminated the parental rights of Brent pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(b) (Supp. 2001), (d), and (h). Melissa’s rights were terminated pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(d), (e), and (h). The parental rights of Dana and Michael were also terminated. Custody of the children was transferred to the Iowa Department of Human Services for adoptive placement. Brent and Melissa have appealed.
We review termination of parental rights 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).
Both Brent and Melissa separately assert the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. The rights of a parent may be terminated under section 232.116(1)(h) when (1) the child is three years of age or younger, (2) the child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance, (3) the child has been removed from the physical custody of her parents for at least six of the last twelve months or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days, and (4) there is clear and convincing evidence the child cannot be returned to her parents’ care at the present time or at any time in the foreseeable future.
Our review of the record reveals the four elements of section 232.116(1)(h) have been established by clear and convincing evidence with regard to each parent. At the time of trial, S.L. was one year old and D.R. was three years old. Both were adjudicated children in need of assistance on August 29, 2001. The children were removed from Melissa’s care on October 23, 2001. Brent has never had custody of S.L.
The record overwhelmingly establishes that S.L. and D.R. cannot be returned to the Melissa’s home at the present time or at any time in the foreseeable future. Despite receiving numerous services, Melissa is unable to maintain suitable housing or employment. Despite repeated inpatient and outpatient recovery efforts, she is unable to stop using drugs. She remains unable to disassociate herself from drug users and relationships that negatively affect her children. The record reveals she is simply unable to provide a stable home environment for her two children. Brent obviously is in no position to parent S.L. He has been incarcerated during S.L.’s entire life. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment not to exceed ten years on October 25, 2000. He has an extensive criminal history and has never demonstrated the stability necessary to successfully rear a child. S.L. deserves permanency and cannot endlessly await Brent’s maturity. Clearly, neither of these parents can provide a home to S.L. or D.R. without placing the children at a substantial risk of suffering additional adjudicatory harm. Because we find the grounds for termination under section 232.116(1)(h) have been proven, we need not consider the other grounds upon which Melissa’s and Brent’s parental rights were terminated. In re A.J., 553 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996) (stating we only need to find grounds to terminate parental rights under one of the sections cited by the juvenile court in order to affirm).
Brent and Melissa also contend termination is not in the best interests of the children. We disagree. Melissa was arrested for a criminal offense on July 31, 2002. One day prior to the termination trial, she tested positive for methamphetamine at a level nearly fourteen times the base line for methamphetamine abusers. She clearly remains unable to assume an appropriate parental role in her children’s lives. Similarly, Brent has not established a place of importance in S.L.’s life. He has been incarcerated since her birth and has failed to financially or emotionally provide for her needs.
We find the long-term best interests of the children are served through termination of the parental rights of Brent and Melissa. Termination provides the best chance for the safe, healthy, and stable environment these children deserve. The children should not have to wait any longer for their parents to become responsible adults.
AFFIRMED.