IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1130 Filed September 25, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF D.S. and X.L., Minor Children,
D.H., Mother, Appellant,
L.L., Father of X.L., Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte,
District Associate Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental
rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Teresa M. Pope of Branstad & Olson Law Office, Des Moines, for appellant
mother.
Nicholas Einwalter, Des Moines, for appellant father of X.L.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anna T. Stoeffler (until withdrawal)
and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee State.
Paul White of Juvenile Public Defender Office, Des Moines, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ. 2
BOWER, Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the juvenile court decision
terminating their parental rights. Statutory grounds for termination of parental
rights exist as to each parent, an extension is unwarranted, and termination is in
the children’s best interests. We affirm on both appeals.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
D.H. is the mother of X.L., born in 2016, and D.S., born in 2017. L.L. is
X.L.’s father; J.S. is the father of D.S. The mother’s rights had been terminated to
another child in 2014 due to the mother’s substance-abuse and mental-health
issues and gaps in visitation.
On December 29, 2016, X.L. was removed from the mother’s care when the
child was found with the mother in the location of a drug bust. The mother was
actively using methamphetamine and marijuana. At that time, L.L. was in jail for
violating a domestic abuse no-contact order prohibiting contact with the mother.
On February 7, 2017, X.L. was adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA).
The mother participated in services and treatment, and X.L was returned to her
care. D.S. remained in the mother’s custody after birth. The CINA case was
closed on August 21, 2018, with a safety order in place and X.L. in the mother’s
sole legal custody. L.L. did not participate in any services relating to domestic
violence or substance abuse.
The day after the CINA case closed, the Department of Human Services
(DHS) received reports of domestic violence between the mother and L.L. in the
children’s presence. Unknown to DHS, the mother had relapsed in late July; L.L.
was also reportedly using illegal substances. L.L. was living with the mother and 3
the children at the time. The mother and L.L. refused to comply with DHS
investigations into the domestic-abuse and substance-abuse allegations. On
October 1, both children were removed from the mother’s custody. Both children
tested positive for methamphetamine and the older child tested positive for
marijuana. The children were placed in foster care. The court adjudicated the
children as CINA on November 21.
In December, the court ordered the mother to obtain substance-abuse
treatment, mental-health treatment, medication management, and domestic-
violence services. The older child was placed with the paternal grandmother; the
younger child continued in foster care. In February 2019, the court ordered the
mother to set up therapy and child-parent psychotherapy for the older child. The
mother did not set up the services until just prior to the termination hearing, which
was held on May 24 and 29.
The mother began several substance-abuse treatment programs starting in
January 2019 but did not complete them. She had been in a residential treatment
program for a month at the time of the termination hearing but reported she did not
like it. The mother only attended two mental-health appointments with her
therapist. However, she testified she was participating in therapy as part of
substance-abuse treatment. The mother discontinued her medication after the
prior CINA case closed and restarted a week prior to the termination hearing. The
mother was inconsistent in attending visitation and has not completed
recommended parenting classes. She continues to be in contact with L.L. and
minimizes their domestic violence. 4
L.L. was incarcerated or had a warrant out for his arrest throughout this
CINA proceeding. He has unresolved substance-abuse and mental-health issues.
He blames the mother for the domestic violence. L.L. did not request any visits
during the juvenile proceedings, did not ask DHS about X.L.’s wellbeing, and has
not provided child support. Although X.L. is in the paternal grandmother’s care, it
does not appear L.L. is involved with his child.
J.S. did not participate in services and has not had any contact with DHS or
D.S.
On June 19, following the hearing, the mother’s parental rights were
terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (g), and (h) (2019). L.L.’s
rights were terminated pursuant to section 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), and (h).1
The mother appeals, seeking reversal of the termination and removal
orders, requesting a six-month extension, and claiming termination is not in the
best interests of the children. L.L. appeals, claiming insufficient evidence supports
termination of his parental rights, asserting termination is not in the best interests
of the child, and requesting a six-month extension.
II. Standard of Review
We review termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo. In re A.B., 815
N.W.2d 764, 773 (Iowa 2012). “There must be clear and convincing evidence of
the grounds for termination of parental rights.” In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219
(Iowa 2016). Clear and convincing evidence means there are “no serious or
substantial doubts as to the correctness of conclusions of law drawn from the
1 J.S.’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to section 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), and (h). He does not appeal. 5
evidence.” In re L.H., 904 N.W.2d 145, 149 (Iowa 2017) (internal quotation marks
and original alterations omitted) (citation omitted). The paramount concern in
termination proceedings is the best interest of the child. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d
793, 798 (Iowa 2006).
III. Analysis
The parents independently claim insufficient evidence supports the
termination of their parental rights, the court should have granted them additional
time to resolve the problems causing the removal, and termination is not in the
children’s best interests.
A. Sufficiency of the evidence. The mother claims there is insufficient
evidence to terminate her rights under section 232.116(1)(d). However, the mother
does not contest the evidence supports termination of her rights under subsections
(g) and (h). L.L. claims the court erred in terminating his rights under section
232.116(1)(b), (d), and (e). He does not contest termination under subsection (h).
The State concedes termination was not proper for either parent under
subsection (d) because no relevant CINA adjudication found a nonaccidental
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1130 Filed September 25, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF D.S. and X.L., Minor Children,
D.H., Mother, Appellant,
L.L., Father of X.L., Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte,
District Associate Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental
rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Teresa M. Pope of Branstad & Olson Law Office, Des Moines, for appellant
mother.
Nicholas Einwalter, Des Moines, for appellant father of X.L.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anna T. Stoeffler (until withdrawal)
and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee State.
Paul White of Juvenile Public Defender Office, Des Moines, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ. 2
BOWER, Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the juvenile court decision
terminating their parental rights. Statutory grounds for termination of parental
rights exist as to each parent, an extension is unwarranted, and termination is in
the children’s best interests. We affirm on both appeals.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
D.H. is the mother of X.L., born in 2016, and D.S., born in 2017. L.L. is
X.L.’s father; J.S. is the father of D.S. The mother’s rights had been terminated to
another child in 2014 due to the mother’s substance-abuse and mental-health
issues and gaps in visitation.
On December 29, 2016, X.L. was removed from the mother’s care when the
child was found with the mother in the location of a drug bust. The mother was
actively using methamphetamine and marijuana. At that time, L.L. was in jail for
violating a domestic abuse no-contact order prohibiting contact with the mother.
On February 7, 2017, X.L. was adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA).
The mother participated in services and treatment, and X.L was returned to her
care. D.S. remained in the mother’s custody after birth. The CINA case was
closed on August 21, 2018, with a safety order in place and X.L. in the mother’s
sole legal custody. L.L. did not participate in any services relating to domestic
violence or substance abuse.
The day after the CINA case closed, the Department of Human Services
(DHS) received reports of domestic violence between the mother and L.L. in the
children’s presence. Unknown to DHS, the mother had relapsed in late July; L.L.
was also reportedly using illegal substances. L.L. was living with the mother and 3
the children at the time. The mother and L.L. refused to comply with DHS
investigations into the domestic-abuse and substance-abuse allegations. On
October 1, both children were removed from the mother’s custody. Both children
tested positive for methamphetamine and the older child tested positive for
marijuana. The children were placed in foster care. The court adjudicated the
children as CINA on November 21.
In December, the court ordered the mother to obtain substance-abuse
treatment, mental-health treatment, medication management, and domestic-
violence services. The older child was placed with the paternal grandmother; the
younger child continued in foster care. In February 2019, the court ordered the
mother to set up therapy and child-parent psychotherapy for the older child. The
mother did not set up the services until just prior to the termination hearing, which
was held on May 24 and 29.
The mother began several substance-abuse treatment programs starting in
January 2019 but did not complete them. She had been in a residential treatment
program for a month at the time of the termination hearing but reported she did not
like it. The mother only attended two mental-health appointments with her
therapist. However, she testified she was participating in therapy as part of
substance-abuse treatment. The mother discontinued her medication after the
prior CINA case closed and restarted a week prior to the termination hearing. The
mother was inconsistent in attending visitation and has not completed
recommended parenting classes. She continues to be in contact with L.L. and
minimizes their domestic violence. 4
L.L. was incarcerated or had a warrant out for his arrest throughout this
CINA proceeding. He has unresolved substance-abuse and mental-health issues.
He blames the mother for the domestic violence. L.L. did not request any visits
during the juvenile proceedings, did not ask DHS about X.L.’s wellbeing, and has
not provided child support. Although X.L. is in the paternal grandmother’s care, it
does not appear L.L. is involved with his child.
J.S. did not participate in services and has not had any contact with DHS or
D.S.
On June 19, following the hearing, the mother’s parental rights were
terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (g), and (h) (2019). L.L.’s
rights were terminated pursuant to section 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), and (h).1
The mother appeals, seeking reversal of the termination and removal
orders, requesting a six-month extension, and claiming termination is not in the
best interests of the children. L.L. appeals, claiming insufficient evidence supports
termination of his parental rights, asserting termination is not in the best interests
of the child, and requesting a six-month extension.
II. Standard of Review
We review termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo. In re A.B., 815
N.W.2d 764, 773 (Iowa 2012). “There must be clear and convincing evidence of
the grounds for termination of parental rights.” In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219
(Iowa 2016). Clear and convincing evidence means there are “no serious or
substantial doubts as to the correctness of conclusions of law drawn from the
1 J.S.’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to section 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), and (h). He does not appeal. 5
evidence.” In re L.H., 904 N.W.2d 145, 149 (Iowa 2017) (internal quotation marks
and original alterations omitted) (citation omitted). The paramount concern in
termination proceedings is the best interest of the child. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d
793, 798 (Iowa 2006).
III. Analysis
The parents independently claim insufficient evidence supports the
termination of their parental rights, the court should have granted them additional
time to resolve the problems causing the removal, and termination is not in the
children’s best interests.
A. Sufficiency of the evidence. The mother claims there is insufficient
evidence to terminate her rights under section 232.116(1)(d). However, the mother
does not contest the evidence supports termination of her rights under subsections
(g) and (h). L.L. claims the court erred in terminating his rights under section
232.116(1)(b), (d), and (e). He does not contest termination under subsection (h).
The State concedes termination was not proper for either parent under
subsection (d) because no relevant CINA adjudication found a nonaccidental
physical injury to the child required for a finding of “physical abuse or neglect.” See
Iowa Code § 232.2(42).
“When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one
statutory ground, we may affirm the juvenile court’s order on any ground we find
supported by the record.” A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 774. If a parent does not dispute
a ground for termination, we need not evaluate if that ground exists. See In re
P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). Because neither parent challenges
termination pursuant to section 232.116(1)(h), and the mother does not challenge 6
under paragraph (g), we affirm termination of each parent’s rights on those
grounds. See id.
B. Extension. The mother claims the court should have granted her
additional time to work toward reunification pursuant to section 232.104(2)(b).
When the court grants an extension under this section, it must “enumerate the
specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes which comprise the
basis for the determination that the need for removal of the child from the child’s
home will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period.” Iowa Code
§ 232.104(2)(b). The mother claims her recent engagement in substance-abuse
treatment, mental-health therapy, and medication management constitute
justification for an extension.
The court considered the request and found additional time would not lead
to reunification. In particular, the court noted the mother’s recent reengagement
in services, short sobriety period, lack of recognition of her failed sobriety as a
reason for the children’s removal, and her history of immediate relapse after
previous juvenile court cases closed. We agree with the court’s reasoning and find
a six-month extension for the mother was unwarranted. See A.B., 815 N.W.2d at
778 (“[E]vidence of the parent’s past performance . . . may be indicative of the
quality of the future care that parent is capable of providing.” (citation omitted)).
L.L. has not engaged in services throughout the proceedings. He bases his
request for a six-month extension on the mother’s engagement in treatment. He
offers no changes he would effect within six months to be able to reunite with the
child. An extension for L.L. is unwarranted. 7
C. Best Interests of the Children. The mother claims she has a good
relationship with the children and met their needs on a full-time basis in the prior
CINA case. She argues the court should have found it is not in the children’s best
interests to terminate her parental rights. L.L. claims the best interests of the older
child is to return the child to the mother and allow him supervised visitation under
the custodial order.
We give primary consideration to the children’s safety; the best placement
for the long-term nurturing and growth of the children; and the physical, mental,
and emotional needs of the children. Iowa Code § 232.116(2). “It is well-settled
law that we cannot deprive a child of permanency after the State has proved a
ground for termination under section 232.116(1) by hoping someday a parent will
learn to be a parent and be able to provide a stable home for the child.” P.L., 778
N.W.2d at 41. Parenting must be constant, responsible, and reliable. A.B., 815
N.W.2d at 777 (citation omitted). Although the mother has made recent steps
toward progress, the children’s lives have been unstable and uncertain while in the
mother’s custody. “It is simply not in the best interests of children to continue to
keep them in temporary foster homes while the natural parents get their lives
together.” Id. at 778 (citation omitted). We find it is in the children’s best interests
to terminate the parental rights of the mother and L.L.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.