In the Interest of M.S., M.S., M.S., and M.S., Minor Children ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                        IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 18-2225
    Filed February 20, 2019
    IN THE INTEREST OF M.S., M.S., M.S., and M.S.,
    Minor Children,
    A.S., Father,
    Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Chickasaw County, Linnea M.N.
    Nicol, District Associate Judge.
    A father appeals the termination of his parental rights in his four children.
    AFFIRMED.
    William P. Baresel of Prichard Law Office, PC, Charles City, for appellant
    father.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
    General, for appellee State.
    Nathaniel Schwickerath, New Hampton, attorney and guardian ad litem for
    M.S., M.S., and M.S.
    Jamie L. Schroeder, Waterloo, attorney and guardian ad litem for M.S.
    Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.
    2
    McDONALD, Judge.
    Anthony appeals from an order terminating his parental rights in his four
    children. The juvenile court terminated Anthony’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
    Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (f) (2018). On appeal, Anthony does not contest
    the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the statutory grounds authorizing the
    termination of his parental rights. Instead, he contends it is not in the children’s
    best interest to terminate the parent-child relationships.     This court reviews
    “proceedings terminating parental rights de novo.” In re A.S., 
    906 N.W.2d 467
    ,
    472 (Iowa 2018).
    The record reflects the children were removed from the home in December
    2016 when two of the children were seriously injured in a car accident. Anthony
    caused the accident by driving under the influence of methamphetamine and
    marijuana. After removal, the parents were largely unavailable and otherwise not
    responsive to services. At the time of the termination hearing, Anthony was
    incarcerated on a fifteen-year sentence arising out of the traffic accident. At the
    same time, the mother was commencing her own lengthy prison sentence for
    various drug offenses. As the juvenile court noted, the children will be of majority
    age by the time the parents discharge their respective sentences.
    Anthony recognizes he was not able to care for the children at the time of
    the termination hearing, but he contends the juvenile court should have maintained
    the parent-child relationships and placed the children in a guardianship.
    Specifically, the children were placed with their adult sister, and Anthony requests
    she serve as the children’s guardian while he is incarcerated. We conclude
    Anthony’s proposed arrangement is not in the best interest of the children.
    3
    When considering the children’s best interest, we “give primary
    consideration to the child[ren]’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the
    long-term nurturing and growth of the child[ren], and to the physical, mental, and
    emotional condition and needs of the child[ren].” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). We
    consider both the long-term and immediate interests of the children. See In re J.E.,
    
    723 N.W.2d 793
    , 798 (Iowa 2006). We evaluate “evidence of the parent’s past
    performance, [because it] may be indicative of the quality of future care that parent
    is capable of providing.” In re A.B., 
    815 N.W.2d 764
    , 778 (Iowa 2012) (quoting In
    re C.B., 
    611 N.W.2d 489
    , 495 (Iowa 2000)); accord 
    J.E., 723 N.W.2d at 798
    . We
    give substantial weight to case history records in assessing a parent’s ability to
    provide care in the future. See In re S.N., 
    500 N.W.2d 32
    , 34 (Iowa 1993).
    Here, there are no considerations that support maintaining the parent-child
    relationships. Anthony has not provided stability for the children. There is little
    reason to believe this will change upon the discharge of his sentence. More
    important, “a guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative to termination.” In
    re B.T., 
    894 N.W.2d 29
    , 32 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). To the contrary, termination is
    preferable under the circumstances presented. Both parents are serving lengthy
    prison sentences and will be unavailable to the children.        The children need
    permanency now. Terminating the parents’ respective rights allows the children
    to be adopted by their older sister, who can then receive some financial support
    for the care of the children.
    On de novo review, we conclude termination of Anthony’s parental rights is
    in the best interest of the children. We affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-2225

Filed Date: 2/20/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021