K.M., Father, Appellant. v. << (2021)

A father appeals from the termination of his parental rights to his children, K.M. and K.M.¹ On appeal, he challenges one of the two statutory grounds authorizing termination of his parental rights. We affirm.

We review termination proceedings de novo. In re Z.P., 948 N.W.2d 518, 522 (Iowa 2020). We generally use a three-step analysis to review the termination of a parent's rights. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018). Those steps include: (1) whether grounds for termination have been established, (2) whether termination is in the children's best interests, and (3) whether we should exercise any of the permissive exceptions to termination. Id. at 472–73. “However, if a parent does not challenge a step in our analysis, we need not address it.” In re J.P., No. 19-1633, 2020 WL 110425, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020).

Here, the father only challenges the statutory grounds, limiting our review to the first step. The juvenile court terminated the father's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (h) (2020). However, the father only challenges an element under paragraph (h) and brings no challenge as to paragraph (e). When the juvenile court finds multiple grounds satisfied, we may affirm on any one ground. In re N.S., No. 14-1375, 2014 WL 5253291, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2014). So we find the unchallenged statutory ground under section 232.116(1)(e) authorizing termination satisfied. See In re J.P., No. 19-1633, 2020 WL 110425, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020) (“Because the mother does not challenge the statutory grounds under paragraph (l), we find the statutory grounds authorizing termination satisfied under section 232.116(1)(l).”).

We affirm without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (d), (e).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The mother's appeal was dismissed.

MAY, Judge.