In the Interest of A.F., Minor Child, B.Z., Father
This text of In the Interest of A.F., Minor Child, B.Z., Father (In the Interest of A.F., Minor Child, B.Z., Father) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0168 Filed April 8, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF A.F., Minor Child,
B.Z., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Annette
Boehlje, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Michael J. Moeller of Sorensen Law Office, Clear Lake, for appellant
father.
Jane M. Wright, Forest City, for mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant Attorney
General, Carlyle D. Dalen, County Attorney, and Nichole M. Benes, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Mark Young of Young Law Office, Mason City, for minor child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Tabor, J., and Mahan, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2015). 2
MAHAN, S.J.
A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights. There is
sufficient evidence in the record to support termination of the father’s rights.
Termination of the father’s rights is in the child’s best interests. The evidence
does not support a determination that termination is inappropriate based on the
closeness of the parent-child relationship. We affirm the decision of the juvenile
court.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
Brian and Jacqueline are the parents of A.F., who was born in 2012. The
parents were not living together when A.F. was removed from Jacqueline’s care
on November 14, 2013, due to substance abuse and domestic violence in the
mother’s home.1 A.F. was placed in foster care.
On December 2, 2013, A.F. was adjudicated to be a child in need of
assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2013). Both
parents were ordered to complete substance abuse evaluations and comply with
any recommended treatment. They were also required to submit to random drug
testing. Brian told service providers he did not intend to attend treatment and
would continue to use marijuana. Because he would not agree to attend
treatment, the juvenile court would not approve unsupervised visitation. The
court noted Brian had a complete lack of understanding that he had a drug
problem and a lack of desire to address it.
1 Sometime in 2013 Brian was hospitalized for mental health and substance abuse issues. He decided to quit drinking alcohol, but kept smoking marijuana. He has not received mental health treatment. 3
On July 17, 2014, the juvenile court entered a permanency order granting
the parents an additional six months to participate in reunification services, but
they still made little to no progress. The State filed a petition seeking termination
of the parents’ rights on October 1, 2014. In December 2014, at the instigation of
his current paramour, Lisa, Brian began an in-patient substance abuse treatment
program. At the time of the termination hearing, on January 9, 2015, Brian was
still attending this treatment program.
The juvenile court entered an order on January 15, 2015, terminating the
parents’ rights under section 232.116(1)(h).2 The court found termination was in
A.F.’s best interests. The court also found none of the exceptions to termination
in section 232.116(3) applied. The court noted Brian had a lengthy addiction to
marijuana and had only been sober for about thirty days. Brian did not have a
job or stable housing. The court determined A.F. should not be required to wait
any longer for Brian to be able to care for her. Brian appeals the decision of the
juvenile court.
II. Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). Clear and convincing evidence is needed to
establish the grounds for termination. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa
2006). Where there is clear and convincing evidence, there is no serious or
substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusion drawn from the
evidence. In re D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359, 361 (Iowa 2002). The paramount
2 Jacqueline has not appealed the termination of her parental rights. 4
concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the child. In re L.L.,
459 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 1990).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Brian claims there is not clear and convincing evidence in the record to
support a finding that the child could not be returned to his care, as found in
section 232.116(1)(h)(4). He points out that he was attending a substance abuse
treatment program and was taking steps so that he could provide for A.F.’s care.
He additionally points out he would have a stable residence with Lisa when he
was discharged from in-patient treatment.
We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support a
finding the child could not be safely placed in Brian’s care at the time of the
termination hearing. Brian was still attending an in-patient treatment program
and was not in a position to assume the care of A.F. at that time. Furthermore,
he had a lengthy history of substance abuse and had not demonstrated an ability
to remain sober outside of the treatment facility. Brian testified he had never held
a steady job. His residence was dependent upon his relationship with Lisa.
Also, he had never addressed mental health concerns. We conclude the juvenile
court properly terminated Brian’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h).
IV. Best Interests
Brian asserts termination of his parental rights was not in the best
interests of A.F. He states service providers had few concerns about his
parenting abilities. He claims he can be a nurturing caregiver for the child.
When considering the best interests of a child, under section 232.116(2) we
consider the child’s safety, the best placement for furthering the long-term 5
nurturing and growth of the child, and the physical, mental, and emotional
condition and needs of the child. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 37 (Iowa 2010).
On our de novo review, we conclude termination of Brian’s parental rights
is in A.F.’s best interests. Throughout most of the case Brian remained defiant
and refused to attend treatment for his marijuana addiction. He was given an
additional six months to work on reunification services but did not take advantage
of this opportunity. Brian waited for more than one year after the child was
removed from her mother’s care to start to address his substance abuse
problems. At the time of the termination hearing, he was still attending treatment,
and thus, was unable to demonstrate an ability to remain sober outside of a
treatment setting. A.F. should not be required to wait longer for a permanent and
stable home. A child should not be required to wait for his or her parents to
become responsible adults. See In re K.R., 737 N.W.2d 321, 324 (Iowa Ct. App.
2007).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Interest of A.F., Minor Child, B.Z., Father, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-af-minor-child-bz-father-iowactapp-2015.