In the Interest of D.G. and G.G., Minor Children

Court of Appeals of Iowa

In the Interest of D.G. and G.G., Minor Children

DecidedAugust 5, 2020

Docket20-0587

StatusPublished

This text of In the Interest of D.G. and G.G., Minor Children (In the Interest of D.G. and G.G., Minor Children) 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.

Bluebook

In the Interest of D.G. and G.G., Minor Children, (iowactapp 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 20-0587 Filed August 5, 2020

IN THE INTEREST OF D.G. and G.G., Minor Children,

L.H., Mother, Appellant,

J.G., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, Jennifer A. Benson,

District Associate Judge.

A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective

parental rights to two of their children. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

C. Kenneth Whitacre, Glenwood, for appellant mother.

Justin R. Wyatt of Woods, Wyatt, & Tucker PLLC, Glenwood, for appellant

father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Vicki R. Danley, Sidney, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Mullins, P.J., May, J., and Gamble, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2020). 2

GAMBLE, Senior Judge.

A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental right

to their children, D.G. and G.G.1 Both parents challenges the statutory grounds

authorizing termination and whether termination is in the children’s best interests.

We affirm.

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings

This is the second appeal involving this family. We set out the following

facts relating to the parents’ rights to the youngest two of their five children in our

first opinion:

The department of human services [(DHS)] intervened in 2015, following the birth of the parents’ fourth child[, G.G]. The department instituted a safety plan based on concerns of drug use by the mother. [G.G.] stayed with relatives for approximately two months, then was formally removed from the parents’ care in a separate proceeding. He was ultimately reunited with his parents, and the district court closed the case. Less than one year later, the youngest child[, D.G.,] was born with marijuana in his system. The State filed a petition to have all five children adjudicated in need of assistance. On the date of the scheduled adjudicatory hearing, the department drug-tested the parents and found they had methamphetamine in their systems. The district court granted the adjudication petition and ordered the children removed from parental care. The department placed the older three children with their maternal grandmother. The youngest two children, who are the subject of this appeal, ended up with their maternal great-aunt.

1 We note the father is not listed on G.G.’s birth certificate, and he is not married to the mother. See Iowa Code § 232.2(39) (2019) (defining parent). Both the mother and father report that the father is G.G.’s biological father. No party takes issue with the father participating or suggests he does not have established parental rights to terminate. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of any unknown father to G.G. in an August 2018 termination order. In a prior appeal involving this family, we addressed the father’s parental rights to G.G. noting he personally acknowledged that he is G.G.’s biological father. See In re D.G., No. 18-1480, 2019 WL 1294228, at *2–3 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2019). Following this reasoning, we again address the father’s rights to G.G. because he acknowledged he is G.G.’s biological father. 3

The parents continued to test positive for methamphetamine and marijuana for several months, but, in time, their drug use declined. Beginning four months before the termination hearing, they tested negative for methamphetamine. Although the father tested positive for marijuana after that date, a hair test administered in the month preceding the termination hearing tested negative for all substances, and the father testified he stopped using marijuana. The mother equivocated on whether she curtailed use of the drug. But the department caseworker agreed the department typically does not remove children for marijuana use by the parents. Both parents attended substance-abuse counseling and participated in other services designed to address their substance abuse. They also participated in several weekly visits with their children. Ultimately, the State recommended against termination of parental rights to the older three children but petitioned to terminate parental rights to the youngest two children. Following a two-day termination hearing, the district court granted the termination petition pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (h) [(2018)] (allowing the court to terminate parental rights where there is an absence of significant and meaningful contact or where the children cannot be returned to parental custody, respectively).

D.G., 2019 WL 1294228, at *1–2 (footnote omitted).

Both parents appealed. The father challenged both statutory grounds relied

upon by the juvenile court, but the mother only challenged one ground. Id. at *2–

3. We found Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) satisfied as to the father and the

mother. Id. (finding the children could not return safely to the father’s care and

affirming the statutory grounds as to the mother based on the unchallenged ground

found by the juvenile court). But both parents argued termination was not in the

children’s best interests due to the familial bond. Id. We agreed, noting the

children’s strong bonds with their parents as well as their bonds with their older

three siblings. Id. We reversed the termination orders as to both parents. Id. at

*3.

Following reversal of the first termination order in March 2019, the juvenile

court ordered reasonable efforts toward reunification to resume. On the way to the 4

first visit following the court’s order, G.G. began to vomit. The parents agreed to

cancel the visit due to G.G.’s vomiting. The day of the next scheduled visit, G.G.

had a nightmare at daycare. Care providers observed him “whimpering and yelling

that he did not want to go back.” When care providers woke G.G., they discovered

that he had soiled himself. The guardian ad litem and a DHS worker agreed G.G.

should not attend visitation with the parents that evening. However, D.G. attended

the visitation.

A doctor examined G.G. and found G.G. “did not demonstrate any signs of

illness” to explain his vomiting and soiling. So DHS obtained a mental-health

evaluation for G.G. to determine if G.G. had mental-health needs that needed to

be addressed. G.G.’s therapist recommended visitations between both G.G. and

D.G. and the parents be fully supervised until the parents completed family therapy

with G.G. However, the parents have not consistently participated in family

therapy, and visitations remain supervised.

The mother claims she received an updated mental-health evaluation in

September 2019. However, because the mother did not sign a release for DHS to

communicate with the facility, DHS could not confirm the mother completed an

evaluation or received any recent treatment. Similarly, the father claims he had

engaged in mental-health services, but this could not be confirmed.

Both parents also obtained updated substance-abuse evaluations.

However, they were both discharged from treatment due to lack of attendance.

The parents expressed difficulty obtaining transportation to drug screens,

so DHS arranged for in-home drug testing. However, the mother tested positive

for THC twice and missed several drug screens since reasonable efforts resumed. 5

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI