IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-1268 Filed March 3, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF E.R., Minor Child,
C.L., Father, Appellant,
J.R., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to a
daughter. AFFIRMED.
Ryan J. Mitchell of Orsborn, Mitchell, Goedken & Larson, P.C., Ottumwa,
for appellant father.
Sarah Wenke, Ottumwa, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Sam Erhardt of Erhardt & Erhardt, Ottumwa, attorney and guardian ad litem
for minor child.
Considered by Bower, C.J., Greer, J., and Blane, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2021). 2
BLANE, Senior Judge.
The mother and father in this appeal showed up at the emergency room at
2:30 a.m. in late-July 2019. Their baby girl had been born in a garage three hours
earlier. Hospital staff believed the parents were under the influence of drugs or
alcohol, and testing showed both the mother and baby were positive for
methamphetamine. The child, E.R., was removed. One year later, the State
moved to terminate the parents’ legal rights to her. On our de novo review, the
lack of progress in reunification goals and the best interests of the child compel us
to affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights.
E.R. was removed from the parents at the hospital and adjudicated a child
in need of assistance (CINA). The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS)
placed E.R. in the care of foster parents with whom she has remained throughout
this case. The mother admitted she had received very little prenatal care—she
had not been seen by an OB/GYN since her twenty-third-week appointment, left
before seeing the doctor, and had only attended four total appointments. The
father had also been charged with felony child endangerment over the parents’
abuse and neglect of their older daughter, S.L. The abuse—the father caused S.L.
to ingest cocaine—left S.L. with permanent, severe brain damage. The parents’
rights to S.L. were terminated during this CINA case.
The parents have exhibited unsafe and unstable patterns throughout the
pendency of this case. Neither parent has housing suitable for a child. Visitations
have always been fully supervised and in public. Neither parent has consistently
attended court-ordered substance-abuse or mental-health treatment. The mother
admitted to using illegal substances several times through the proceedings. 3
Despite being ordered to address her substance-abuse and mental-health
issues, the mother has not successfully completed any program of treatment.
Providers believe she is not committed to treatment, and she reports feeling
depressed and sleeping most of the day. While DHS workers and other providers
helped her with scheduling appointments, provided transportation, and offered
support and encouragement, the mother has not consistently attended.
The mother also has not maintained employment. She picked up charges
for fourth-degree theft and driving while barred. DHS has always found her hard
to contact. She does not return messages, and providers have difficulty scheduling
appointments and visitations with her. It was also difficult to obtain consent from
her for E.R.’s medical treatment. The mother lives with a new paramour who she
says is controlling. She reported he dismantled her phone so she could not be
contacted. He removed the spark plugs from her car and stole her bicycle so she
could not leave the house.
During most of the CINA proceedings, the father has been incarcerated
pending resolution of his child endangerment charges. He finally pleaded guilty to
child endangerment and neglect or abandonment of his older daughter and
received a sentence of concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment not to
exceed ten years on each conviction, suspended. Although services were offered
to him in jail and the residential correctional facility, he has not completed any
ordered substance-abuse or mental-health treatment.
E.R. has been with the foster parents, who are also caring for her older
sister S.L., for over a year now. E.R. has a seizure disorder, and her neurologist
has emphasized the need to administer her medications at precise times to prevent 4
seizures. The foster parents have maintained her medical regimen and a safe and
stable home for her. They are also willing to adopt her.
The juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights under Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(h) (2020) and, additionally, the father’s rights under paragraph (n). The
parents do not disagree the facts support termination on those grounds. On
appeal, they raise only two issues. First, they contend the juvenile court should
have given them additional time to work toward reunification. And second, they
believe it was not in the child’s best interests to terminate their parental rights.
“We review child-welfare proceedings de novo. The juvenile court’s fact
findings do not bind us, but we give them weight, particularly with regard to
credibility. Our primary concern is the best interests of the children.” In re A.H.,
950 N.W.2d 27, 33 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020) (citations omitted); see also In re J.E.,
723 N.W.2d 793, 802 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially) (identifying
safety and the need for a permanent home as the “defining elements” in the best-
interests determination).
The parents argue the juvenile court should have given them additional time
to work toward reunification. To grant an extension of six months, under Iowa
Code section 232.104(2)(b), the court must determine the need for removal will no
longer exist at the end of that time. In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 89 (Iowa Ct App.
2005). The parents say they have made significant progress by attending visits
and seeking treatment. We do not agree the parents have made sufficient
progress to be able to reunify with E.R. The CINA proceedings have been marked
with the parents’ lack of progress in fundamental safety goals: consistently
obtaining treatment for their substance-abuse and mental-health issues and 5
maintaining a safe and stable environment fit for a child. The parents have had
their rights terminated to their older daughter for the same problems that suffuse
this case. There is no indication they will be able to reunite with E.R. in six months
or at any foreseeable future point.
The mother contends the juvenile court failed to consider the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic1 on the provision of services and their ability to see their
daughter in person. The pandemic response has created barriers to services, but
it is the parents who have failed to utilize alternatives. Visitation was offered by
video conference, and the parents did not attend consistently. Therapy services
were offered remotely, and the parents did not utilize them.
The parents next contend it was not in her best interests to terminate their
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-1268 Filed March 3, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF E.R., Minor Child,
C.L., Father, Appellant,
J.R., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to a
daughter. AFFIRMED.
Ryan J. Mitchell of Orsborn, Mitchell, Goedken & Larson, P.C., Ottumwa,
for appellant father.
Sarah Wenke, Ottumwa, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Sam Erhardt of Erhardt & Erhardt, Ottumwa, attorney and guardian ad litem
for minor child.
Considered by Bower, C.J., Greer, J., and Blane, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2021). 2
BLANE, Senior Judge.
The mother and father in this appeal showed up at the emergency room at
2:30 a.m. in late-July 2019. Their baby girl had been born in a garage three hours
earlier. Hospital staff believed the parents were under the influence of drugs or
alcohol, and testing showed both the mother and baby were positive for
methamphetamine. The child, E.R., was removed. One year later, the State
moved to terminate the parents’ legal rights to her. On our de novo review, the
lack of progress in reunification goals and the best interests of the child compel us
to affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights.
E.R. was removed from the parents at the hospital and adjudicated a child
in need of assistance (CINA). The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS)
placed E.R. in the care of foster parents with whom she has remained throughout
this case. The mother admitted she had received very little prenatal care—she
had not been seen by an OB/GYN since her twenty-third-week appointment, left
before seeing the doctor, and had only attended four total appointments. The
father had also been charged with felony child endangerment over the parents’
abuse and neglect of their older daughter, S.L. The abuse—the father caused S.L.
to ingest cocaine—left S.L. with permanent, severe brain damage. The parents’
rights to S.L. were terminated during this CINA case.
The parents have exhibited unsafe and unstable patterns throughout the
pendency of this case. Neither parent has housing suitable for a child. Visitations
have always been fully supervised and in public. Neither parent has consistently
attended court-ordered substance-abuse or mental-health treatment. The mother
admitted to using illegal substances several times through the proceedings. 3
Despite being ordered to address her substance-abuse and mental-health
issues, the mother has not successfully completed any program of treatment.
Providers believe she is not committed to treatment, and she reports feeling
depressed and sleeping most of the day. While DHS workers and other providers
helped her with scheduling appointments, provided transportation, and offered
support and encouragement, the mother has not consistently attended.
The mother also has not maintained employment. She picked up charges
for fourth-degree theft and driving while barred. DHS has always found her hard
to contact. She does not return messages, and providers have difficulty scheduling
appointments and visitations with her. It was also difficult to obtain consent from
her for E.R.’s medical treatment. The mother lives with a new paramour who she
says is controlling. She reported he dismantled her phone so she could not be
contacted. He removed the spark plugs from her car and stole her bicycle so she
could not leave the house.
During most of the CINA proceedings, the father has been incarcerated
pending resolution of his child endangerment charges. He finally pleaded guilty to
child endangerment and neglect or abandonment of his older daughter and
received a sentence of concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment not to
exceed ten years on each conviction, suspended. Although services were offered
to him in jail and the residential correctional facility, he has not completed any
ordered substance-abuse or mental-health treatment.
E.R. has been with the foster parents, who are also caring for her older
sister S.L., for over a year now. E.R. has a seizure disorder, and her neurologist
has emphasized the need to administer her medications at precise times to prevent 4
seizures. The foster parents have maintained her medical regimen and a safe and
stable home for her. They are also willing to adopt her.
The juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights under Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(h) (2020) and, additionally, the father’s rights under paragraph (n). The
parents do not disagree the facts support termination on those grounds. On
appeal, they raise only two issues. First, they contend the juvenile court should
have given them additional time to work toward reunification. And second, they
believe it was not in the child’s best interests to terminate their parental rights.
“We review child-welfare proceedings de novo. The juvenile court’s fact
findings do not bind us, but we give them weight, particularly with regard to
credibility. Our primary concern is the best interests of the children.” In re A.H.,
950 N.W.2d 27, 33 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020) (citations omitted); see also In re J.E.,
723 N.W.2d 793, 802 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially) (identifying
safety and the need for a permanent home as the “defining elements” in the best-
interests determination).
The parents argue the juvenile court should have given them additional time
to work toward reunification. To grant an extension of six months, under Iowa
Code section 232.104(2)(b), the court must determine the need for removal will no
longer exist at the end of that time. In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 89 (Iowa Ct App.
2005). The parents say they have made significant progress by attending visits
and seeking treatment. We do not agree the parents have made sufficient
progress to be able to reunify with E.R. The CINA proceedings have been marked
with the parents’ lack of progress in fundamental safety goals: consistently
obtaining treatment for their substance-abuse and mental-health issues and 5
maintaining a safe and stable environment fit for a child. The parents have had
their rights terminated to their older daughter for the same problems that suffuse
this case. There is no indication they will be able to reunite with E.R. in six months
or at any foreseeable future point.
The mother contends the juvenile court failed to consider the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic1 on the provision of services and their ability to see their
daughter in person. The pandemic response has created barriers to services, but
it is the parents who have failed to utilize alternatives. Visitation was offered by
video conference, and the parents did not attend consistently. Therapy services
were offered remotely, and the parents did not utilize them.
The parents next contend it was not in her best interests to terminate their
rights to E.R. We consider her safety; the most advantageous placement for
furthering her long-term nurturing and growth; as well as her physical, mental, and
emotional condition and needs. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 37 (Iowa 2010)
(discussing factors in Iowa Code section 232.116(2)). Most important, E.R. is a
medically delicate child who needs meticulous and diligent attention paid to her
medication and treatment. The record is replete with evidence the parents could
not supply that kind of care. The parents have already inflicted severe abuse and
neglect upon their older child. They obtained almost no prenatal care during the
mother’s pregnancy with E.R. and delivered her without obstetrical care.
1 “The novel coronavirus/COVID-19 is an ongoing international pandemic. To stem the spread, governments, including the state of Iowa, implemented emergency safeguards recommended by such agencies as the Centers for Disease Control, which included social distancing and wearing of face masks.” A.H., 950 N.W.2d at 34 n.6. 6
Meanwhile, the DHS has noted E.R. is well-bonded with her foster parents. See
Iowa Code § 232.116(2)(b) (noting it is appropriate when assessing the best
interests of the child to consider the child’s integration into the foster family and
whether the foster family is willing to be a permanent home for the child). They
have provided a safe and stable home as well as diligent medical care and are
willing to adopt her.
The mother additionally argues the court should have withheld termination
due to the strength of the parent-child bond. See id. § 232.116(3)(c) (permitting
the court to forego termination if “[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that the
termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of
the parent-child relationship”). E.R. has spent her entire life with the foster family.
And the disruption of the bond existing between the mother and E.R. cannot
overcome the compelling need for termination in this case. See In re A.R., 932
N.W2d 588, 591 (Iowa Ct. App. 2019) (explaining application of the factors under
section 232.116(3) are permissive, not mandatory). We agree with the juvenile
court it is in E.R.’s best interests to sever any legal tie with her parents with a view
toward a permanent home through adoption.
Because we find the parents’ claims have no merit, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.