Opinion
No. 2-406 / 02-0274.
Filed May 15, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, MARY L. TIMKO, Associate Juvenile Judge.
Mother and father appeal the order terminating their parental rights to their daughter. AFFIRMED.
Douglas Roehrich, Sioux City, for appellant father.
Dewey Sloan, Jr., LeMars, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas S. Mullin, County Attorney, and Michele Lauters, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Joseph Kertels, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and MAHAN and EISENHAUER, JJ.
William H. Sr. and Lori H. appeal the order terminating their parental rights to their daughter, Misty, who was born December 15, 1993. We affirm.
In 1998, based on findings that Misty's father, William Sr., and brother, William Jr., were sexual offenders, the court ordered that they have no contact with Misty. Misty was later adjudicated a child in need of assistance, pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b) and (d) (1997), when it was discovered Lori had allowed William Sr. and William Jr. to remain living in the family home. Misty was removed and placed in foster care. On September 18, 2001, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of both William Sr. and Lori to Misty. Following a hearing, the court terminated both of their parental rights pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(b), (c), (d), (e), and (h) (2001). William Sr. and Lori both appeal this order.
Now codified at Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), (f), and (i) (Supp. 2001).
We review this matter de novo. In re A.B., 554 N.W.2d 291, 293 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996).
William Sr. concedes the State proved all the elements necessary for termination under the five enumerated sections. However, he asserts that even if sufficient statutory grounds were proven, the State failed to prove termination was in Misty's best interests. We recognize that termination is not mandatory upon a finding that all of the applicable statutory elements have been met, In re E.B.L., 501 N.W.2d 547, 552 (Iowa 1993), and that in addition to meeting the statutory requirements for termination, the termination must be in the best interest of the child. In re T.Q., 519 N.W.2d 105, 106 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994).
We conclude termination of William Sr.'s parental rights was in Misty's best interests. William Sr. is a convicted sex offender and admitted to fantasizing about children. He went years following this conviction without seeking treatment. He also abused Lori and their two older children, and he admits to having an anger problem. Catholic Charities interviewed Willliam Sr. and in August of 2001 reported they would need to work with him for at least two years to work on his problem behaviors.
Lori first contends (1) the State failed to provide reasonable efforts as required by section 232.102(10)(a) and (2) her due process rights were violated when counsel from the State Public Defender's Office withdrew following a permanency hearing. We conclude Lori has preserved neither of these contentions for our review. See State v. Eames, 565 N.W.2d 323, 326 (Iowa 1997) (holding that an issue must be presented to and ruled upon by the district court before it can be asserted on appeal).
We only need to find grounds to terminate parental rights under one of the sections cited by the district court in order to affirm its ruling. In re A.J., 553 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). We conclude the court properly terminated Lori's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(e), which requires findings that (1) the child is four or older, (2) the child has been adjudicated in need of assistance, (3) the child has been removed for twelve of the last eighteen months or the last twelve consecutive months, and (4) the child cannot be returned to the parent's custody.
Misty clearly cannot safely be returned to Lori's custody. Lori continued to allow Misty to have contact with admitted sexual offenders despite repeated warnings by the court against such contact. A medical examination given to Misty after her removal showed evidence of long-term sexual abuse. Lori made little progress in treatment and often showed little interest in Misty. Moreover, Misty's behavior and demeanor have improved markedly in foster care and her prospects for a healthy future clearly have been brightened as a result of her removal from Lori and William Sr.'s custody.
AFFIRMED.