No. 2-450 / 02-0638.
Filed June 19, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, BRIAN L. MICHAELSON, Associate Juvenile Judge.
Mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her daughter. AFFIRMED.
Brian B. Vakulskas of Vakulskas Law Firm, Sioux City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas S. Mullin, County Attorney, and Dewey Sloan, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State
Marchelle Denker of Sioux City Juvenile Office, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and MILLER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Randi B. appeals the order terminating her parental rights to daughter Rachel B. We affirm.
Rachel was born to Randi and Daniel B. on April 7, 1999, in South Dakota, where Randi had retreated at a time when Randi and Daniel were in involved in termination of parental rights proceedings regarding two other children. After the entry of the removal order, Randi placed Rachel in the care of Rachel's maternal grandmother, Wendy, in Las Vegas, Nevada. In July of 2001, Wendy came forward in Iowa with Rachel, and Rachel was placed in foster care.
The day after Rachel was placed in foster care, the State filed a petition alleging her to be in need of assistance (CINA). The juvenile court subsequently granted the petition, expressing concerns about Randi's chaotic and nomadic lifestyle and Daniel's domestic violence. It therefore adjudicated Rachel pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b) and (c)(2) (2001). On March 7, 2002, the court held a hearing on the State's petition to terminate Randi's and Daniel's parental rights. Following that hearing, the court terminated their parental rights under sections 232.116(1)(c) and (f). Randi appeals. We review this matter de novo. See In re M.M.S., 502 N.W.2d 4, 5 (Iowa 1993).
Now codified at Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) and (g) (Supp. 2001).
Randi asserts termination is improper because she only received corrective services during the termination proceedings regarding her two other children and that none were provided subsequent to the filing of the termination petition in this case. The record does reflect that, other than visitation services, the State provided few corrective services following Rachel's removal. We note, however, the provision of services following the CINA adjudication is not a requirement under section 232.116(1)(f). That section requires findings the child has been adjudicated CINA, the court has terminated parental rights with respect to another child in the family, the parent lacks the ability or willingness to respond to services, and an additional period of rehabilitation would not correct the situation. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f).
Now Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g) (Supp. 2001).
Therefore, because 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 are able to affirm without regard to the requirement in section 232.116(1)(c) that subsequent to the CINA, the parents were offered or received services to correct the circumstances which led to the adjudication, and those circumstances continued to exist.
Accordingly, we conclude the court properly terminated Randi's parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f). As noted, Rachel was adjudicated CINA in September of 2001. Randi and Daniel had their parental rights to two other children terminated in April of 1999. The testimony at trial was overwhelming that Randi either totally ignored services offered to her or failed to internalize or act upon any of the lessons taught her during such services. Social worker Mary Kohn, who had worked with Randi since Randi was thirteen years old, testified to Randi's history of failed services, lack of cooperation, and lack of any progress or improvement in the circumstances that lead to the termination of Randi's parental rights to two other children. Department of Human Services (DHS) case manager Robin Garraway testified that, although the DHS provided extensive services to Randi over a ten-year period, Randi remained impulsive and tumultuous, while placing her children in positions of importance below herself and her relationship with Daniel. The record clearly supports the conclusion any additional period of rehabilitation would not correct the situation that led to Rachel's adjudication. We therefore affirm the termination of Randi's parental rights.