IN RE A.F.T.L

SACKETT, C.J.

Cassandra, the mother of Anthony, born in late 2004, has filed a petition on appeal challenging a March 2, 2006 order terminating her parental rights to her child. Her rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (h) (i) and ( l) (2005).

Cassandra in her petition raises but two issues: (1) "Whether Mother's parental rights should be terminated because of a relapse which was addressed immediately" and (2) "Whether Mother's past history in drug treatment was erroneously used against her." Cassandra cites In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 389 (Iowa 2000) in support of her first issue and In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338 (Iowa 1998) in support of her second issue. She cites no additional authority, makes no specific reference to any portion of the two cases cited, and makes no argument in support of her position.

The State responds that there is clear and convincing evidence to support the termination under all grounds urged. The State further alleges that error was not preserved because Cassandra failed to discuss the issues she raised; consequently her arguments are waived. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(1)( c) ("Failure in the brief to state, to argue or to cite authority in support of an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue.").

We review termination proceedings de novo. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1993). The grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re E.K., 568 N.W.2d 829, 830 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).

Cassandra does not contend that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence any of the statutory grounds upon which termination was based. When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we need only find grounds to terminate under one of the sections cited by the juvenile court to affirm. In re A.J., 553 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). There being no challenge to any of the statutory grounds for termination we affirm on all grounds.

That said, we also have reviewed Cassandra's two challenges and the cases cited in support thereof. In our careful reading of cited authority we fail to find support for either proposition argued. Furthermore, Cassandra failed to preserve error on her challenge to consideration of her past history in drug treatment. Evidence of her past history came into the record through numerous State exhibits that were admitted at the termination hearing without objection.

There is nothing in Cassandra's cursory petition on appeal that would support her position that the case should either be remanded for full briefing or be reversed. The termination is affirmed. There are foster parents ready to adopt this child. The State should take immediate steps to go forward with the adoption.