Opinion
No. 3-465 / 03-0241
Filed July 10, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Timothy T. Jarman, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental right to two children. AFFIRMED.
Robert Tiefenthaler, Sioux City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas S. Mullin, County Attorney, and David Dawson, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Marchelle Denker of the Sioux City Juvenile Office, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Hecht, and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Malanie W. is the mother of Jonitta M., born December 8, 2000, and Anthony W., who was born November 30, 2001. The family first came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services when it was reported Malanie had pushed down a young nephew and twisted his ankle while trying to put shoes on him. Jonitta and Anthony were later adjudicated in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b), (c)(2), and (n) (2001). On September 24, 2002, the children's guardian ad litem filed a petition seeking to terminate Malanie's parental rights. Following a subsequent hearing, the court terminated her parental rights to both children pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l) (Supp. 2001). Malanie appeals.
We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991). Our primary concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the children . In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). While the district court terminated the parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we will affirm if at least one ground has been proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995).
On our de novo review, we conclude the court properly terminated Malanie's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h). At the time of the termination order, both children were less then three years of age, had been adjudicated CINA, and had been removed from Malanie's physical custody for the last six months. Moreover, we conclude the record contains proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the children cannot be returned to Malanie at the present time. See In re R.L.F., 437 N.W.2d 599, 602 (Iowa Ct.App. 1989) (discussing the State's burden of proof under the Indian Child Welfare Act). Malanie has a substance abuse problem and has made minimal progress in various treatment programs. She has demonstrated an inability to care for the everyday needs of her children in the absence of constant supervision. Her parenting skills remained minimal despite the receipt of services and her visits with the children were unproductive. Melanie's general attitude with regard to attempting to regain custody of the children has been one of indifference and her lifestyle is incompatible with safely caring for two young children. We are not convinced Malanie's substance abuse problems have been corrected, she does not have a stable residence, and her parenting skills are clearly inadequate. Jonitta's and Anthony's best interests call for termination, and we therefore affirm.