No. 4-451 / 04-0647.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
July 14, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Odell G. McGhee, II, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals from a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to three children. AFFIRMED.
Jesse A. Macro, Jr., Des Moines, for appellant-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and William Sales, III, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Brad Schroeder of Hartung Schroeder, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Edward Bull of Bull Law Office, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee-mother.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Miller, JJ.
MILLER, J.
George is the father, and Kristine the mother, of three children, born in 1992, 1994, and 1996. George appeals from an April 7, 2004 juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to the children. (The juvenile court also terminated Kristine’s parental rights, but she is not a party to this appeal.) George claims termination of his parental rights was not in the children’s best interest. We affirm.
We review termination proceedings de novo. Although we are not bound by them, we give weight to the trial court’s findings of fact, especially when considering credibility of witnesses. The primary interest in termination proceedings is the best interests of the child. To support the termination of parental rights, the State must establish the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116 by clear and convincing evidence.
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (citations omitted).
The juvenile court terminated George’s parental rights pursuant to each of Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (f), (i), and (j) (2003). Even if statutory requirements for termination are met, the decision to terminate must still be in the best interest of the child. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994).
The children were removed from Kristine’s physical custody in March 2002, and placed in the custody of their paternal grandmother. They were adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA) in April 2002. In May 2002 the children were removed from the paternal grandmother for allowing George to move into her home upon his release from prison. The children were placed in the legal custody of their maternal grandparents. By August 2002 the maternal grandparents were unable to control and adequately care for the children, and the children were placed in the legal custody of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) and were placed in foster care.
In August 2003 the juvenile court ordered the children returned to Kristine, but in September 2003 Kristine relapsed with methamphetamine use and the children were again removed from her custody, placed in shelter care, and then placed in foster care, where they remained at the time of the March 2004 termination hearing.
George is thirty-two years of age and has had substance abuse problems (methamphetamine, marijuana, and alcohol) since age seventeen. Since 1996 he has had two convictions for domestic abuse assault, resulting in suspended sentences and probation; a conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia, resulting in incarceration; four convictions for possession of a controlled substance, resulting in a fine, suspended sentences and probations, and an incarceration; and, most recently, a conviction for “possession of anhydrous ammonia,” resulting in a five-year prison sentence.
George was incarcerated when the underlying CINA cases began in early 2002. He was again incarcerated when the children were removed from Kristine the second time, in September 2003. In November 2003 he began his present five-year prison sentence. His tentative discharge date is October 2005, although he has the possibility of earlier parole.
George was first incarcerated in 1996, and has been in and out of jail or prison since his youngest child was an infant. He had been through substance abuse treatment three times before his current imprisonment. When he was released from imprisonment during the underlying CINA proceedings, service providers attempted to implement a visitation schedule. Their efforts were unsuccessful, however, as George did not remain in contact with his DHS worker concerning his whereabouts, did not follow through with services, and did not provide required specimens for drug testing.
There is no well-established bond between George and the children. The youngest child does not know George very well. The children have not seen George in two years or more. They have had two years of disruptions and changes, each of which has caused or contributed to certain emotional and behavioral problems. The children need the permanency of a stable home. They are now in a pre-adoptive foster home, which provides a structured, safe environment. They have a positive bond with their foster parents.
In determining children’s best interests, we look to their long-range as well as immediate interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). This requires looking to what the future holds for children if returned to a parent. Id. In making this decision we look to the parent’s past performance because it may indicate the quality of care the parent is capable of providing in the future. Id. “[W]e consider the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the [children] when deciding whether to terminate parental rights.” In re C.W., 554 N.W.2d 279, 282 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). While “the law requires a full measure of patience with troubled parents who attempt to remedy a lack of parenting skills,” this patience has been built into the statutory scheme of Iowa Code chapter 232. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 494. For children the ages of those in this case, the law envisions a twelve-month opportunity for the parent to be able to have the children returned. See Iowa Code §232.116(1)(f)(3) (2003). Children “should not be forced to endlessly suffer the parentless limbo of foster care.” In re E.K., 568 N.W.2d 829, 831 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). “At some point, the rights and needs of the child[ren] rise above the rights and needs of the parents.” In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). Applying these principles to the facts of this case, we fully agree with the juvenile court that termination of George’s parental rights is in the children’s best interest.
AFFIRMED.