STREIT, P.J.
Brian G. appeals the termination of his parental rights. He claims the State did not prove the grounds for the termination by clear and convincing evidence and the termination was not in his son's best interests. We affirm.
I. Background Facts Proceedings .
Brian G. and Vicki M. are the parents of Joey M. (born March 17, 1990) and three other children. When Brian and Vicki separated in 1993, Brian cared for the children until Vicki took custody of them in 1996 or 1997. In April 1998 Vicki left the children alone in her filthy, unsafe home and was later arrested for public intoxication. The children were adjudicated in need of assistance shortly thereafter.
At about the time of the CINA adjudication, Brian began to serve a ten-year indeterminate prison sentence for a drug conviction. He has not seen Joey since February 1998. Meanwhile Joey — who has oppositional defiant disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder — has gone from Vicki's home, to a foster home, back to Vicki's home, to his maternal aunt's home, and back to a foster home.
In August 2000 the State filed a petition for the termination of the respective parent-child relationships between Brian, Vicki, and Joey. Vicki consented to the termination of her parental rights. Brian denied the termination of his parental rights should occur, but the juvenile court found the termination was appropriate pursuant to section 232.116(1)(e) of the Iowa Code. Brian appeals from the juvenile court's order.
II. Standard of Review .
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re S.N., 500 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1993). The State must prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. In re E.K., 568 N.W.2d 829, 831 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. In re A.B., 554 N.W.2d 291, 293 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996).
III. The Merits .
Brian claims the State has not proven the fourth element of section 232.116(1)(e). This element provides a termination is only appropriate if "[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that at the present time the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child's parents as provided in section 232.102." Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e)(4) (1999). Brian argues Joey could have been placed in Vicki's custody at the time of the termination hearing. Vicki, in her consent to the termination of her parental rights, stated she believed it was in Joey's best interests her parental rights be terminated. Moreover, she admitted she cannot take care of Joey, monitor him, or meet his needs. She has never contested the validity of her consent. Nor has she appealed any aspect of the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights. Brian cannot appeal the order on her behalf.
Brian does not argue Joey could have been placed in his custody at the time of the termination hearing.
Brian also claims Joey's best interests require he maintain relationships with his parents and siblings. As was discussed above, Vicki has conceded — and has not contested this concession through an appeal — it is in Joey's best interests her parental rights be terminated. It is also in Joey's best interests Brian's parental rights be terminated. Brian began serving a ten-year indeterminate sentence in 1998. At the October 2000 termination hearing Brian testified he believed he would be paroled in January 2001. Even if Brian has been paroled, he is not an appropriate caretaker for Joey at this time. Brian has a history of criminal activity and has been incarcerated on at least two different occasions, has mental health and substance abuse problems, and has had little contact with Joey for several years. A social worker testified that it would take at least nine to eighteen months from the date of Brian's parole before Joey could be placed in his custody. Joey, however, is an eleven-year-old with special needs who needs permanency and stability now. He cannot wait for Brian to become a capable father. His best interests require both of his parents' rights be terminated despite the impact this may have on his relationships with his siblings.
We have considered all the arguments Brian has raised on appeal, whether discussed in detail or not. We affirm the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.