In the Interest of B.T. and L.T., Minor Children

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: March 8, 2023
• Docket: 22-2060
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-2060 Filed March 8, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF B.T. and L.T., Minor Children,

J.T., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, Linnea M.N.

Nicol, District Associate Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two children.

AFFIRMED.

R.J. Longmuir, Independence, for appellant father.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Kimberly Lange of the Waterloo Juvenile Public Defender’s Office,

Waterloo, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ. 2

VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two children,

born in 2019 and 2020. He contends the district court inappropriately concluded

the children could not be returned to parental custody as required by Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(h)(4) (2022). He also contends the district court inappropriately

concluded he had “a severe, chronic substance related disorder, present[ed] a

danger to himself or others, and [his] prognosis indicate[d] that the child[ren]

[would] not be able to be returned to [his] custody in a reasonable period of time.”

The father’s second argument implicates a statutory ground for termination

that was not pled by the State or cited by the district court. See Iowa Code

§ 232.116(1)(l). Accordingly, we will not address it. Cf. In re J.L., 868 N.W.2d 462,

465 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (stating parent appropriately filed a posttrial motion

raising the cour’s improper reliance on an unpled termination ground). We will

focus on the evidence supporting termination under Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(h), which contains several undisputed elements in addition to

the cannot-be-returned requirement.

The father began using methamphetamine in 2018 and continued to use

the drug after the birth of his first child. Just before the birth of the second child,

the children’s mother left the father, taking the children with her. The mother filed

a custody petition. The district court granted her physical care, subject to

supervised visits with the father, which were to gradually transition to unsupervised

overnight visits. 3

In time, the department of health and human services received a complaint

that the father was still using methamphetamine. Following an investigation, the

department issued a founded child abuse report for “dangerous substances.”

The State applied to have the children temporarily removed from the father’s

custody. The district court granted the application. The children were later

adjudicated in need of assistance. They remained in the physical care and custody

of their mother throughout the proceedings.

The father only minimally participated in reunification services. He was to

engage in random drug testing, but after a positive test for methamphetamine in

late 2021, he did not appear for at least six scheduled tests. Following the

termination hearing, the district court ordered the department to immediately

schedule a final drug test, and the court left the record open for admission of the

result. The father appeared at the testing site almost thirty minutes after it closed.

When the caseworker attempted to reschedule the test, the father did not respond.

The father also “was very inconsistent” in his participation in a “Solution

Based Casework” curriculum and in parenting skills training. The most recent

department employee assigned to the case recommended termination of the

father’s parental rights, citing his “use of illegal substances” and concern that he

would not be “able to take care of [the children] appropriately.”

On our de novo review of the record, we agree with the district court that

the children could not be returned to the father’s custody. The court appropriately

terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(h).