In the Interest of E.M., E.M., and J.M., Minor Children
This text of In the Interest of E.M., E.M., and J.M., Minor Children (In the Interest of E.M., E.M., and J.M., 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.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1384 Filed January 9, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF E.M., E.M., and J.M., Minor Children,
E.M., Father, Appellant,
J.M., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, Linnea M.N.
Nicol, District Associate Judge.
A father and mother each appeal a juvenile court order terminating their
parental rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
R.J. Longmuir of Peters & Longmuir, PLC, Independence, for appellant
father.
A.J. Flickinger of Craig, Wilson & Flickinger, Independence, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Meredith L. Lamberti, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Tammy L. Banning of the Juvenile Public Defender’s Office, Waterloo,
guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ. 2
BOWER, Judge.
A father and mother each appeal a juvenile court order terminating their
parental rights. We find there is sufficient evidence in the record to support
termination and termination is in the children’s best interests. We affirm the
juvenile court’s decision.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
E.M., father, and J.M., mother, are the parents of three children, born in
2013, 2016, and 2017. The parents have a history of substance abuse, domestic
violence, mental health issues, and criminal behavior. The Iowa Department of
Human Services (DHS) most recently became involved with the family in February
2017 due to domestic violence and substance abuse.1 On April 3, 2017, the
juvenile court adjudicated the two oldest children to be in need of assistance
(CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n) (2017).
The two older children were removed from the parents’ care on May 15,
2017 and placed in foster care. At that time, the father was using
methamphetamine and not participating in services; the mother was drinking
alcohol and not taking medication for her mental health. Shortly thereafter, there
was a warrant for the father’s arrest and he absconded. The father was later
arrested in August 2017. He was convicted of forgery, domestic abuse assault,
and possession of controlled substances. He has been in prison during the
remainder of the juvenile court proceedings regarding these children.
1 The family had earlier interactions with DHS. The mother’s parental rights to two other children were terminated in 2006. 3
The youngest child was born in November 2017 with methamphetamine in
his system and was removed from the parents’ care shortly after birth. The child
was adjudicated CINA under section 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n). The mother entered
the Heart of Iowa substance abuse treatment program, and the youngest child was
temporarily placed in her care from February to March 2018. The mother was
asked to leave the program because she violated the rules, and the youngest child
was again removed from her care. The mother was on probation for third-degree
theft, and her probation was revoked as well.
On April 26, 2018, the State filed a petition for termination of the parents’
rights. At the time of the hearing, the father was in prison and stated he was not
in a position to have the children returned to his care. The mother was in a halfway
house where she was also not permitted to have the children in her care.
The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights to the oldest child
under section 232.116(1)(e), (f), and (l) (2018), and the two youngest children
under section 232.116(1)(e), (h), and (l). The mother’s parental rights to the oldest
child were terminated pursuant to section 232.116(1)(e), (f), (g), and (l); to the
middle child pursuant to section 232.116(1)(e), (g), (h), and (l), and to the youngest
child pursuant to section 232.116(1)(g) and (l). The court concluded termination
of the parents’ rights was in the children’s best interests. The father and mother
each appeal the juvenile court’s decision.
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). 4
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 concern in termination
proceedings is the best interests of the children. In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 493
(Iowa 1990).
III. Father
The father claims the State did not present sufficient evidence to warrant
termination of his parental rights. He states the children could be placed in his
care when he is released from prison. When the juvenile court has terminated a
parent’s rights on more than one ground, “[t]o affirm, we need to find facts to
support just one of the grounds.” In re J.E., 907 N.W.2d 544, 546 (Iowa Ct. App.
2017).
Concerning the termination of his rights to the oldest child under section
232.116(f) and the two youngest children under section 232.116(1)(h), the father
only contests the fourth element of both subsections, which require clear and
convincing evidence the child cannot be returned safely to the parent’s care. The
children could not be returned to the father’s care at the time of the termination
hearing. In addition to the fact that he was in prison where he could not care for
the children, the evidence showed the father had very minimal participation in
services. The father had no contact with the children after he absconded from law
enforcement in May or June 2017, and he had never met the youngest child—who
was born after he went to prison. We conclude there is sufficient evidence in the
record to support termination of the father’s parental rights. 5
IV. Mother
The mother claims the State did not present sufficient evidence to terminate
her parental rights. Again, although her rights were terminated on multiple
grounds, we may affirm if there is sufficient evidence in the record to support “just
one of the grounds.” See id. The mother claims her rights should not have been
terminated under section 232.116(1)(g) because her rights had not been
terminated for a sibling of these children.
Section 232.116(1)(g)(2) requires the State to show “[t]he court has
terminated parental rights pursuant to section 232.117 with respect to another child
who is a member of the same family.” The State submitted a copy of a termination
order from 2006 showing the mother’s parental rights to children born in 2002 and
2005 were terminated under section 232.116(1)(a), (e), (h), and (l) (2005) and
finding termination was in the best interests of the children. We conclude the State
presented clear and convincing evidence to show the mother’s parental rights
should be terminated under section 232.116(1)(g) (2018) and we affirm on this
ground.
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 E.M., E.M., and J.M., Minor Children, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-em-em-and-jm-minor-children-iowactapp-2019.