IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 15

- 1674 Filed December 23, 2015

IN THE INTEREST OF A.E., Minor Child,

C.E., Mother, Appellant,

B.G., Father, Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary Timko

,

Associate Juvenile Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.

John S. Moeller of John S. Moeller P.C. , Sioux City, for appellant

- mother.

Andrew J. Twinamatsiko of Crary

, Huff , Ringgenberg, Hartnett & Storm,

P.C. , Sioux City, for appellant

- father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller

- Todd, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Marchelle M. Denker of Office of State Public Defender , Sioux City,

attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Bower, JJ.2

BOWER, Judge.

A father 1 appeals the termination of his parental rights to one child, A.E.,

claiming clear and convincing evidence does not support the termination of his

parental rights. We affirm the juvenile court’s order.

We review de novo, proceedings terminating parental rights. See In re

A.M.

, 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). The three

- step statutory framework

governing the termination of parental rights is well established and need not be

repeated herein. See In re P.L.

, 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). The juvenile

c ourt issued a thorough and well

- reason ed order terminating the father’ s parental

rights, and we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law in t he juvenile

court’ s order as our own.

The juvenile court terminated the father’ s parental rights pursuant to Iowa

Code section 232.116(1)(d), (h), and (i) (2015 ). When the juvenile court

terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we may affirm the

order on any ground we find supported by the record. In re D.W.

, 791 N.W.2d

703, 707 (Iowa 2 010).

Termination is appropriate under section 232.116(1)(h) where the State

proves the following:

(1) The child is three years of age or younger. (2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96. (3) The child has been removed from the physical cu stody of

the child’ s parents for at least six of the last twelve months, or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days.

1 The mother timely filed a notice of appeal but did not timely file her petition on appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Iowa Supreme Court.3

(4) There is clear and convincing evide nce that at the present time the child cannot be retur ned to the custody of the

child’ s parents as provided in section 232.102.

Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h). The father does not dispute the first three elements

have been proved. Instead, he argues the Stat e failed to prove by clear and

convincing evidence that the child c ould not be returned to his care.

In finding termination was proper, the juvenile court reasoned:

[The father] has admitted to a history of marijuana and methamphetamine use since he was thirteen years old. [The father] also admitted to having experimented with cocaine and hallucinogens (K2). While [the father] denied any recent use of

alcohol in his August 20, 2014 chemical dependency assessment (Last Use: 13

- 14 years ago), he admitted to “occasional use” of

alcohol in December 2014. The police reports from the May 2015

domestic violence incident also indicated he was intoxicated.

There is no evidence [the father] has completed any treatment program as recommended. [The father] report ed being diagnosed with ADHD in kindergarten and took medication for this through middle school. He stated that he struggled with focus and feeling overwh elmed.

He has been treated for a nxiety and prescribed medication. He reported four treatment episod es in his lifetime, with the most

recent treatment while he was incarcerated in prison two years ago. [ T he father] has not involved himself in any mental health treatment

or been assessed for the need for medication. It was recommended throughout this case that he go to Siouxland Mental Health Center, but he never went.

. . . [The father] , himself, put it best when he acknowledged that he has not acco mplished anything in the past 11 months. It does not appear that he is going to accomplish enough with in a reasonable amount of time to have [A.E.] returned to his care.

. . . . [The father] has yet to begin to fully address his substance

abuse issue. . . . [The father] admitted to using marijuana in June and meth intravenously in May. He testified he is clean now, has newer friends, and a better outlook. He plans to stay with [the mother]

. He is willing to go to inpatient treatment now even though

this was the recommendation at the beginning of the case. [The father] has completed several substance abuse evaluations with several different agencies and has never followed through with the

treatment recommendations. “Now” is too late.4

. . . . Despite services offered I provided, [the father] and [the mother] have been unable or unwilling to stabilize t heir lifestyles and address their dysfunctional and toxic relationship. The circumstances leading to the adjudication of [A.E.] continue to exist.

Neither [the father] nor [the mother] has taken any affirmative action

to assume their roles as [A.E.]’s pa rent. Neither [the father] nor [the mother] has met any financial obligations. [The father] has made no reasonable effort to complete responsibilities of the case permanency plan.

. . . Neither [the father] nor [the mother] has

done anything to maintain a place of importance in [A.E.]’s life. They are simply visitors who come to see him at grandma’ s house, not his parents.

Upon our review of the record we agree with the district court’s order.

There is clear and convincing evidenc e A.E. could not be returned to his father’s

care at the time of the termination hearing due to the father’ s unaddressed

mental health and substance abuse issues, and his lack of suitable housing and

employment. A child should not endle ssly await the matu rity of his parent

,

particularly when he is of tender years. See D.W. , 791 N.W.2d at 707.

We affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating the father’ s parental rights

without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a)

- (e).

AFFIRMED.