In the Interest of K.P., Minor Child, A.P., Father ( 2016 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-0353
Filed May 11, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF K.P.,
Minor Child,
A.P., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Winneshiek County, Alan D.
Allbee, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Whitney L. Schiller of Shafer & Shafer, Waukon, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Patrick Ritter of Elwood, O’Donohue, Braun & White, West Union, for
minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
A father appeals the order terminating his parental rights. We find there is
clear and convincing evidence in the record to support terminating the father’s
parental rights and termination is in the child’s best interests. Lastly, the
circumstances of this case do not support an exception to termination based
upon the closeness of the parent-child relationship. We affirm the decision of the
juvenile court.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
A.P., father, and A.R., mother, are the parents of a child born in 2010.
The parents lived together for a period of time, but separated due to domestic
violence. The child was removed from the mother’s care in January 2013 due to
the mother’s use of methamphetamine and marijuana. The child was placed with
the maternal great-grandmother.
The child was adjudicated to be in need of assistance (CINA) under Iowa
Code section 232.2(6)(n) (2013). The child was returned to the mother’s care for
a substantial period of time. In August 2014, the mother had a child with a
different father, and the mother and new child both tested positive for illegal
drugs. The child in this case was then removed from the mother’s care and
again placed with the maternal great-grandmother. During the extended period
of time the child was involved in CINA proceedings, the father participated very
little in services or supervised visitation.
A petition seeking termination of the parents’ rights was filed on
August 11, 2015. The termination hearing was held on February 10, 2016. The
record shows the father had a previous conviction for fourth-degree criminal
3
mischief and was on probation. He had two positive drugs tests for marijuana.
At the time of the hearing the father was in jail for probation violations. The
father testified he expected to be placed in a work-release facility, where he
would be for one to six months. He also testified, when released, he would not
be able to participate in services or visitation because his employment required
him to travel.
The juvenile court entered an order on February 10, 2016, terminating the
father’s parental rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(e) and (f) (2015). 1 The
court found termination of the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best
interests. The court also found circumstances were not present for an exception
to termination based on the closeness of the parent-child relationship. The father
appeals the termination of his parental rights.
II. Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). Clear and convincing evidence is needed to
establish the grounds for termination. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa
2006). Where there is clear and convincing evidence, there is no serious or
substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusion drawn from the
evidence. In re D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359, 361 (Iowa 2002). The paramount
concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the child. In re L.L.,
459 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 1990).
1
The mother’s parental rights were also terminated. She has not appealed.
4
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The father claims there is not clear and convincing evidence in the record
to support termination of his parental rights. “When the juvenile court orders
termination of parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we need only
find grounds to terminate on one of the sections to affirm.” In re T.S., 868
N.W.2d 425, 435 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015).
Concerning section 232.116(1)(f), the father only disputes the element of
whether the child could be safely returned to his care. The father was in jail at
the time of the termination hearing. He expected to be placed in a work-release
facility, where he would remain for one to six months. There is clear and
convincing evidence in the record the child could not be safely returned to the
father’s care at the time of the termination hearing. We find there is sufficient
evidence in the record to support termination of the father’s parental rights under
section 232.116(1)(f).
IV. Best Interests
The father claims termination of his parental rights is not in the child’s best
interests. In considering a child’s best interest we give “primary consideration to
the child’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and
growth of the child, and to the physical, mental, and emotional condition and
needs of the child.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2); In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa
2010). The evidence shows the father has not been a stable influence in the
child’s life. He had contact with the child and social workers when it was
convenient for him but otherwise was not available. We determine termination of
the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests.
5
V. Exception
The father claims the juvenile court should have decided not to terminate
his parental rights due to the exception in section 232.116(3)(c) providing
termination need not occur if it would be detrimental to the child due to the
closeness of the parent-child relationship. Throughout the CINA case, which
began back in 2013, the father’s contact with the child has been very sporadic.
The evidence in this case does not support a finding termination would be
detrimental to the child due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court terminating the father’s
parental rights.
AFFIRMED.