In the Interest of K.K., Minor Child, B.K., Father ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1749
Filed February 11, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF K.K.,
Minor Child,
B.K., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William A. Price,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Yvonne C. Naanep, Des Moines, for appellant father.
Chelsey Handley of Handley Law Firm, P.C., Ankeny, for mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Stephanie Brown,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
John P. Jellineck, Juvenile Public Defender’s Office, Des Moines, attorney
and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.
2
DANILSON, C.J.
The father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights to K.K.,1
born in August 2011, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (h), and (l)
(2013). He contends the grounds for termination are not supported by sufficient
evidence. He also argues termination is not in the child’s best interests, see
Iowa Code § 232.116(2), and termination should not be considered because the
child is in the care of a relative. See id. § 232.116(3)(a).
We conduct a de novo review of termination-of-parental-rights
proceedings. In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010).
On appeal, we may affirm the juvenile court’s termination order on any
ground we find supported by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 707. Upon
our de novo review, we conclude grounds for termination exist under section
232.116(1)(h).
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) provides that termination may be
ordered when there is clear and convincing evidence that a child three years of
age or younger who has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA)
and removed from the parents’ care for at least the last six consecutive months
cannot be returned to the parents’ custody at the time of the termination hearing.
K.K. is three years old, was adjudicated a CINA on March 28, 2014, and has
been out of the parents’ custody since March 3, 2014. A hair stat test on the
child at the time came back positive for methamphetamine.
In March 2014, the father was under house arrest in Nebraska as a result
of a felony driving-under-the-influence (DUI) charge. He successfully completed
1
The mother’s parental rights were also terminated. She does not appeal.
3
outpatient substance abuse treatment in Nebraska and then completed aftercare
in June 2014. However, on August 9, 2014, and while on probation, the father
was arrested for DUI;2 his blood alcohol level was .308. Consequently, at the
time of the September 24, 2014 termination hearing, the father had pending a
felony DUI charge and probation revocation hearing. There is clear and
convincing evidence to support termination pursuant to section 232.116(1)(h).
The father asks that his parental rights not be terminated because he and
the child have a good bond and, further, the child is in the care of her great aunt.
See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(a) (stating the court need not terminate parental
rights if “[a] relative has legal custody of the child”). In deciding whether to
terminate parental rights based on a particular ground, we must give primary
consideration to “the child’s safety, . . . the best placement for furthering the long-
term nurturing and growth of the child, and . . . the physical, mental, and
emotional condition and needs of the child.” Id. § 232.116(2); see D.W., 791
N.W.2d at 708. The child has been diagnosed with adjustment disorder with
mixed disturbances of emotions and conduct and posttraumatic stress disorder.
Her therapist opines the child needs permanency as soon as possible because
the current situation is very traumatic for her. We commend the father for his
forty-five days of sobriety and encourage him to follow through with his
substance abuse treatment. But we conclude that the child’s placement in a
stable suitable home and her need for permanency weigh in favor of termination
of the father’s parental rights. See In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct.
2
The police report stated he was arrested for fifth-offense DUI. A September 10, 2014
letter from the father’s probation officer states he has three prior DUIs.
4
App. 1998) (“Where the parent has been unable to rise above the addiction and
experience sustained sobriety in a noncustodial setting, and establish the
essential support system to maintain sobriety, there is little hope of success in
parenting.”).
We note, too, that the factors weighing against termination in section
232.116(3) are permissive, not mandatory. See In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778,
781 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). Our supreme court has recently stated that “[c]ourts
are obliged to move urgently to achieve the ends that will best serve the child’s
interests because childhood does not ‘await the wanderings of judicial process.’”
In re J.C., ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, 2014 WL 7338505, at *6 (Iowa 2014) (citation
omitted). Where a child cannot be reunified with the parent, termination of
parental rights followed by adoption is the favored placement option. See In re
C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 174 (Iowa 1997) (“An appropriate determination to
terminate a parent-child relationship is not to be countermanded by the ability
and willingness of a family relative to take the child.”). We affirm the termination
of the father’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.