IN THE INTEREST OF S.E., K.E., and M.E., Minor Children, V. E., Father, Appellant, T.E., Mother, Appellant.
from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary L.
Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.
and Father appeal termination of their parental rights
pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 232 (2017).
S. Moeller of John S. Moeller, P.C., Sioux City, for
Vakulskas Joly of Vakulskas Law Firm, P.C., Sioux City, for
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Marchelle M. Denker of Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City,
guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.
juvenile court terminated Vernon and Tanna's respective
rights in their children M.E. (born 2008), K.E. (born 2010),
and S.E. (born 2013) pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(b), (e), and (i) (2017). In this appeal, both
parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
the statutory grounds authorizing the termination of their
respective parental rights. In addition, Tanna contends
termination of her parental rights was not in the
children's best interest.
court reviews termination proceedings de novo. See In re
A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). The statutory
framework authorizing the termination of a parent-child
relationship is well established and need not be repeated
herein. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472-73 (Iowa
2018) (setting forth the statutory framework). Where, as
here, "the juvenile court terminates parental rights on
more than one statutory ground, we may affirm the juvenile
court's order on any ground we find supported by the
record." In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa
choose to address the sufficiency of the evidence under
section 232.116(1)(i). This statute authorizes the
termination of parental rights upon clear and convincing
evidence of the following:
(1)The child meets the definition of child in need of
assistance based on a finding of physical or sexual abuse or
neglect as a result of the acts or omissions of one or both
(2)There is clear and convincing evidence that the abuse or
neglect posed a significant risk to the life of the child or
constituted imminent danger to the child.
(3)There is clear and convincing evidence that the offer or
receipt of services would not correct the conditions which
led to the abuse or neglect of the child ...