ZIMMER, J.
Laura and Michael F. appeal separately from a juvenile court order which terminated their parental rights to their youngest child, Brandy. Laura claims the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination and also contends termination is not in their child's best interests. Michael argues his parental rights should not be terminated because Brandy could be safely returned to her mother's care. Upon our de novo review, we affirm the juvenile court.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Laura and Michael are the parents of Brandy, born in August 2003. Brandy has five older siblings: Sarah, born in 1990, Michael Jr., born in 1993, Brandon, born in 2000, Kyle, born in 2001, and Dakota, born in 2002. Michael is the father of all the children mentioned, except Sarah.
The family has a long history with the Department of Human Services. In September 2001, the children were removed from Laura and Michael's care because Michael physically abused Sarah and there were other reports of domestic violence in the home. The children were adjudicated as children in need of assistance (CINA) in December 2001. The mother and father participated in services, but made little progress.
Brandy was born on August 6, 2003. She was removed from her parent's custody a few days later. In August of 2003, the State filed a petition to terminate Laura and Michael's parental rights to Brandy's siblings. In addition, the State filed a child in need of assistance petition regarding Brandy. Following a hearing, the juvenile court terminated Laura and Michael's parental rights to Brandy's siblings by order filed January 30, 2004.
Laura and Michael appealed. We affirmed the juvenile court's termination order in an opinion filed April 14, 2004.
The State filed a petition to terminate Laura and Michael's parental rights to Brandy on February 10, 2004. Following a hearing which concluded on April 23, 2004, the court entered an order on July 6, 2004, terminating the parental rights of the mother and father pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(g) (child CINA, parents' rights to another child were terminated, parent does not respond to services) and 232.116(h) (child three or younger, CINA, removed from home for six of the last twelve months, and cannot be returned home) (2003). Both parents have appealed from the order terminating their parental rights to Brandy.
II. Scope of Review
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 T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2001). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
III. Discussion
On appeal, Laura claims the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination. She also maintains that termination is not in her daughter's best interests. Michael argues his parental rights should not be terminated because Brandy could be safely returned to her mother's care.
A. Statutory Grounds
We find clear and convincing evidence supports termination of Laura and Michael's parental rights to Brandy under the statutory grounds alleged by the State. Laura contends her parental rights should not be terminated because she has separated from Michael and filed for divorce. Even though the parties no longer live in the same household, legitimate concerns remain regarding their cooperation with services and their credibility. The father was discharged from his therapy in October 2003 due to lack of compliance and attendance. The mother has been inconsistent with her therapy since December 2003. She continues to minimize the abuse that Michael inflicted on the children, and she fails to recognize the negative impact his abusive behavior had on the children.
The record reveals that Michael is an angry, controlling, and physically abusive person.
Despite compelling evidence to the contrary, Laura continues to believe that Brandy would not be at risk of being hurt or injured if she was left unsupervised with Michael. The record raises serious concerns regarding whether Laura will remain separated from Michael. Laura's service providers do not believe that Laura has the ability to keep Brandy safe. Our de novo review of the record convinces us that the juvenile court properly concluded that Brandy could not be safely returned to her mother's care. It is also apparent that additional services would not alleviate the problems which led to Brandy's removal from her parent's care in the first place.
The parties have a history of violating no contact orders.
Michael does not argue that Brandy should be returned to his care. Instead, he contends his parental rights should not have been terminated because the State failed to prove that Brandy could not be returned to her mother's care. Because we have already concluded that Laura's parental rights were properly terminated, we reject this assignment of error.
B. Best Interests
Even if the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights are met, the decision to terminate must be in the child's best interests. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). Laura and Michael maintain termination is not in Brandy's best interests. We disagree. The juvenile court properly found that if Brandy were returned to her parent's care she would be at high risk of further adjudicatory harm. Brandy currently resides in a preadoptive home with two of her siblings. She has been out of her mother's care since she was four days old. She needs a safe, stable, and permanent home. Termination of Laura and Michael's parental rights is clearly in Brandy's best interests.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.