IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 15

- 1346 Filed October 14, 2015 IN THE INTEREST OF B.G. II and D.C., Minor Children, B.G., Father, Appellant, A.G., Mother, Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Charles D. Fagen , District Associate Judge.

A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

Roberta Megel, Public Defender, Council Bluffs, for appellant

- father. Michael Hooper, Council Bluffs, for appellant

- mother. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Mill er - Todd and Janet Hoffman, Assistant Attorneys General, Matthew Wilber, County Attorney, and Eric Strovers, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee. Phil Caniglia, Council Bluffs, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Danilson , C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.2

TABOR, Judge. A mother appeals the termination of her parental r elationship with two children , six

- year - old B.G. and eight

- year - old D.C. B.G.’s father also appeals the termination of his parental rights

. 1 Both parents argue the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and contend termination is not in the child ren ’ s best interests. The mother also asserts termination is inappropriate due to the closeness of the parent

- child rel ationship. Because these children have been in foster care for nearly two years and their parents have made little progress in obtaining stability in their own lives , we affirm the juvenile court’s decision on both appeals. This family came to the attent ion of the Iowa Department of Human Service (DHS) in 2011 when the father was found caring for the children while

u nder the influence of drugs ; the mother was incarcerated in Florida at the time. The children were removed from the home , which was “unsanit ary and infested with cockroaches.” In February 2012 both the mother and father tested positive for methamphetamine during visitation with the children. The family completed services related to these incidents in October 2012. This family again came to the attention of DHS in October 2013. Council Bluffs police took the children into protective custody after an incident at their home. While investigating a report of domestic violence by the father, police found drug paraphernalia and unsanitary conditions in the residence. The

1 The father is not D.C.’s biological or legal father. But he testified he was willing to take custody of D.C. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of D.C.’s possible biological and legal father s , but they are not parties to this appeal.3

parents denied any physical assaults, but reported the father had come home from a night of drinking and threw items around the house. At the temporary removal hearing in November 2013, t he juvenile court ordered the p ar ents to undergo random drug screens, participate in services, and find suitable ho u sing

. The parents were allowed visitation. On December 4, 2013, the court adjudicated B.G. and D.C. as children in need of assistance (CINA) under Iowa Code section 232.2( 6)(c)(2), (g), and (n) (2013). The court allow ed the children to be in the mother’s care as long as she did not leave the Family Works progra m before successful completion. The mother left the program a day later and the court ordered the children again be removed from her care. During these proceedings the parents have been offered services for chemical d ependency , d omestic v i olence, and mental health treatment, as well as supervised visitation

. T he mother and father have both been incarcerat ed at various points du ring the CINA proceedings

. At the time of the termination hearing , the mother was incarcerated awaiting trial and the father was living in a homeless shelter. Both parents have failed to engage in the services ordered by the court. T he father has not shown up for a majority of his drug tests and has not engaged in substance abuse treatment. T he court terminated the parental rights of both the father and the mother on July 31, 2015. Both parents separately appeal. We review de novo pr oceedin gs terminating parental rights. In re A.M. , 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). We uphold an order terminating parental4

rights if there is clear and convincing evide nce of grounds for termination. See In re C.B. , 6 11 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). Ev idence is “clear and convincing” when there are no “serious or substantial doubts as to the correctness [of] conclusions o f law drawn from the evidence.” Id. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of the mother and father under Iowa Code sectio ns 232.116(1)(b), (e), (f), (i) and ( l )

. When the juvenile court terminates rights on more than one statutory ground, we may affirm the order on any ground relied upon by the juvenile court and supported by the record. In re D.W. , 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010). We find the State proved paragraph (f) b y clear and convincing evidence as to both parents. To terminate parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f), the State must show by clear and convincing evidence the child ren are four years of age or older; have been adjudi cated in need of assistance; have been removed from the physical custody of the parents for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, or the last twelve consecutive months; and there is clear and convincing e vidence at the present time the child ren could not be returned to the parents’ custody as provided in section 232.102. Neither parent challenge s the first three elements , but both parents argue the State failed to prove the children could not be returned t o the ir care. The father argues B.G. could be returned to his care “once he got on his feet after his most recent incarceration.” Section 232.116(1)(f) uses the phrase, “ at the present time”, meaning the point of the termination hearing. See A.M. , 843
N .W.2d at 111. The father admits he was unable to take custody of the child at5

the time of the hearing because he was still staying a t a homeless shelter and his future living situation was un certain

. He ha d been homeless since November
2014. Given his long

- term instability, w e conclude the State proved the elements of section (f) by clear and convincing evidence as to the father

. Because she was incarcerated at the time of the hearing, t he mother contends the children could have been returned to the ca re of the father. She advances a legal argument that section (f) only requires one parent to be ready to resume care. Her argument fails for two reasons. First as we decided above, the father is unable to take custody of the children

. Second, the mothe r cannot benefit on appeal from urging the rights of the father. See In re D.G. , 704 N.W.2d 454, 460 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005) (stating one parent cannot assert facts or legal positions pertaining to the other parent as the court makes a separate adjudication as to each parent) ; see also In re K.R. , 737 N.W.2d 321, 323 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (stating the father did not have standing to a ssert an argument on the mother’ s behalf “in an effort to ultimately gain a benefit for himself, that is, the reversal of the te rmination of his parental rights”) . At the time of the termination hearing, the children could not be returned to the mother ’s care because she was in jail after having been arrested for several criminal charges in Iowa. 2 Having decided the State proved a statutory ground for termination, we turn to the parents’ arguments that termination is not in the children’s best interest under Iowa Code section 232.116(2)

. See In re P.L. , 778 N.W.2d 33, 37 (Iowa 2010). I n considerin g whether to terminate parental rights, Iowa courts

2 The mother al so admitted in her testimony that she faced an additional criminal charge in Nebraska.6

must give pri mary consideration to the children ’ s safety, to the best placement for furthering the ir long

- term nurturing and growth , and to the ir physical, mental, and emotional condi tion and needs

. Iowa Code § 232.116(2). After reviewing the family’s history , we find it is in the children’s best interest for termination to proceed. The children’s safety cannot be assured if returned to the care of either parent. The children’s long

- term nurturing and growth cannot be furthered without some stability in their lives. The children ha d been removed from their parent s ’ care for twenty

- one months at the time of the termination hearing. A fter nearly two years and the provision of numerous services , the par ents were unable to progress to the point where they could accommodate the return of the children. As the juvenile court observed, the “ same problems that precipitated the child’s re moval from their parent’s care

— untreated chemical dependency, untreated mental health problems, lack of appropriate housing and employment, minimal compliance, domestic violence, incarceration, and lack of verification or commitment ” still exist ed at the time of the termination hearing

. Both parents ha d been in and out of jai l during the proceedings

. Because of their incarcerations, both parents missed many opportunities to visit their children. Neither parent followed up with substance abuse treat ment or mental health services. The father has not appeared fo r a majority of his drug tests. He only enrolled in a batter er ’s education program a few weeks before the termination hearing. We have said it repeatedly in child welfare cases

— c hild ren should not be required to wait for their parent s to become responsib le adults.7

K.R. , 737 N.W.2d at 324. T he children’s best interest s would be served by the DHS finding them a pre

- adoptive home following termination of parental rights

. Finally , the mother argues the juvenile court should have determined termination was inappropriate due to the clo seness of the parent

- child bond. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). The factors found in section 232.116(3) are permissive, not mandatory, and the court may exercise discretion in det ermining whether to apply them. A.M. , 843 N.W. 2d at 113. The court found “ [t] he children are bonded to their parents but there is no bond between these children and the parents that would warrant the court allowing for more time to reunify. ” We agree with the juvenile court’s reasoning

. While termination of their relationship with the mother will undoubtedly be hard on the children in the short

- term, the benefit of long

- term stability carries more weight in this case. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.