No. 5-152 / 05-0060.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
March 16, 2005.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karla J. Fultz, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals from a juvenile court order which terminated his parental rights to his son. AFFIRMED.
Barbara Romar of Barbara Durden Romar, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and William Sales, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Christine Bisignano, West Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.
ZIMMER, J.
Mark M. appeals from a juvenile court order which terminated his parental rights to his son. He contends termination of his parental rights is not in the child’s best interests. He also claims the court should not have terminated his parental rights because the mother has custody of the child. Upon our de novo review, we affirm the juvenile court’s decision.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Hope M. and Mark M. are the parents of Alexander M., born September 5, 2002. Mark was incarcerated when Alexander was born. On September 6, 2002, the juvenile court issued an order removing the child from the custody of his mother because of a history of substance abuse by his parents. A few weeks later, Alexander was returned to his mother’s care at the House of Mercy where the mother was residing. He has remained in her care ever since. Alexander was adjudicated as a child in need of assistance (CINA) on October 29, 2002.
On October 6, 2004, the State filed a petition to terminate Mark’s parental rights.[1] Following a termination hearing, the juvenile court entered an order on December 27, 2004, terminating the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b) (abandonment), (d) (child CINA for physical or sexual abuse (or neglect), circumstances continue to exist despite receipt of services), (e) (child adjudicated CINA, removed from home for at least six consecutive months, and parent has not maintained significant and meaningful contact), and (h) (child is three or younger, child CINA, removed from home for six of last twelve months, and cannot be returned home) (2003). This appeal followed.
II. Scope of Review
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 2001). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
III. Discussion
On appeal, the father does not challenge any of the statutory grounds relied on by the juvenile court to terminate his parental rights. Instead, he claims termination of his parental rights is not in his son’s best interests and argues that his parental rights should not have been terminated because Alexander is in the legal custody of a relative. We address each of his arguments in turn.
Even if the statutory requirements for termination are met, the decision to terminate must be in the child’s best interests. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). In determining the best interests of a child, we consider the child’s long range and immediate best interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). Mark argues termination of his parental rights was premature. He states he is willing and will be able to play a role in his child’s life upon his release to the community. He also points out that he may be able to provide financial support for his son at some point in the future.
The record reveals that Mark has a lengthy history of drug abuse and neglecting his children.[2] He was sentenced to 25 years in prison during the summer of 2002 for possession of precursor chemicals with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance.[3] Mark has been incarcerated since before his son was born. He has had no contact with his child or the Department of Human Services while these proceedings were pending in the juvenile court. Alexander is doing well in the custody of his mother and needs the stability which she can provide. The child’s guardian ad litem recommends that the father’s parental rights be terminated.
Children should not be forced to endlessly await the maturity of a natural parent. C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 494. At some point the rights and needs of the child rise above the rights and needs of the parent. In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). Upon review of the record, we find no reason to disagree with the juvenile court’s conclusion that termination of Mark’s parental rights is in his son’s best interests. Accordingly, we reject this assignment of error.
Mark also contends the court should not have terminated his parental rights because Alexander is living with his mother. Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(a) states that the court need not terminate parental rights if the child is in the legal custody of a relative. This section is permissive not mandatory. J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d at 781. It is within the sound discretion of the juvenile court, based on the circumstance before it and the best interests of the child, whether to apply this section. Id. For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, we conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in failing to preserve this parent-child relationship pursuant to section 232.116(3)(a).
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.