In the Interest of E.T., J.T., B.G., and M.E., Minor Children E.T., Father D.L.-t., Mother
This text of In the Interest of E.T., J.T., B.G., and M.E., Minor Children E.T., Father D.L.-t., Mother (In the Interest of E.T., J.T., B.G., and M.E., Minor Children E.T., Father D.L.-t., Mother) 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. 17-0883 Filed September 13, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF E.T., J.T., B.G., and M.E., Minor Children
E.T., Father Appellant,
D.L.-T., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joseph W. Seidlin,
District Associate Judge.
A father and mother appeal separately from the order terminating their
parental rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
John C. Heinicke of Kragnes & Associates, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant father of E.T. and J.T. Colin R. McCormack of Van Cleaf and McCormack, Des Moines, for appellant mother. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Gretchen White Kraemer, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. John P. Jellineck, Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, for minor children. Nicole Garbis Nolan and Charles Fuson of the Youth Law Center, Des Moines, guardians ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ. 2
BOWER, Judge.
A father and mother appeal separately from the order terminating their
parental rights.1 We find sufficient evidence to support the termination of both
the mother’s and father’s rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and
(h) (2017). We also find no exceptions to termination apply and termination is in
the best interests of the children. We affirm the juvenile court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
The four children came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS) when J.T. tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. Both
the mother and father denied use of methamphetamines, though both had
multiple drug tests return positive. The four children were found to be children in
need of assistance and removed from the parents’ care. During the CINA action
the juvenile court found the parents were offered reasonable efforts to work
toward reunification. The permanency plan adopted by the juvenile court
required the parents to address their substance-abuse, mental-health, housing,
and domestic-violence issues.
The mother successfully completed outpatient substance abuse treatment
but then once again tested positive for methamphetamine use. The father was
unsuccessfully discharged, tested positive for methamphetamine use, and failed
to complete a relapse prevention program. Neither parent reentered treatment.
The mother claims her positive drug tests were caused by allergy medication, but
she is unable to provide evidence to demonstrate this and has not stopped taking
1 Only the father of E.T. and J.T. appeals. The father of B.G. does not appeal, and the father of M.E. is deceased. 3
or changed the medication. The mother attended therapy for only two months,
and the father attended therapy only once.
Review hearings were held August 9 and October 12, 2016. The juvenile
court continued its prior orders and ordered additional services including family
team meetings, adjustments in the visitation schedule to accommodate the
father’s work schedule, and psychological evaluations. The juvenile court again
found reasonable efforts were being made. On February 28, 2017, a
permanency hearing was held. The juvenile court found the parents had not
sufficiently addressed their substance-abuse, mental-health, housing, or
domestic-violence issues. The therapist for B.G. and M.E. testified the children
were told by the mother DHS lies and cannot be trusted. All visits between the
parents and children were fully supervised and did not progress beyond that
stage. Both the mother and father continued to test positive for
methamphetamine use and had active arrest warrants at the time of the
termination hearing. The juvenile court terminated the parents’ parental rights on
May 22, 2017.
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). 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 4
concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the child. In re L.L.,
459 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 1990).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Both the mother and father claim the evidence was not sufficient to
terminate their parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f) and (h). The mother
and father both concede the requirements of the first three elements of each
subsection are met and contest only the element that the children would suffer
further adjudicatory harm if returned to their care. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)(f)(4), (h)(4). The mother and father have not addressed their
substance abuse, mental health, or housing. Both parents have continued to test
positive for methamphetamine use, even after receiving treatment and a year of
services through DHS. Neither the father nor mother has meaningfully
participated in therapy. The children’s visits with the parents were often moved
due to the poor condition of the family home.
The father claims he is still employed, has fixed many of the problems with
the family home, and has maintained a significant and positive relationship with
his children. However, he has not addressed his significant substance-abuse
and mental-health issues. The mother claims she has not used
methamphetamine and the positive drug tests reflect her use of allergy
medication. The district court did not credit the mother’s testimony, noting there
was never an adjustment in the allergy medication or an offer of proof the
medication could cause false positives. Additionally, the mother testified she had
not used methamphetamine since she was eighteen. However, the statement
was clearly false as another child, B.G., was born with methamphetamine in her 5
system when the mother was twenty-four. The mother has not addressed her
mental-health concerns.
The parents did not make positive steps toward reunification. After a year
of services, no progress was made. The mother and father have both shown
themselves to be unwilling to put the needs of their children above their own
selfish indulgence and harmful behaviors. Returning the children to the care of
the parents at the time of the termination hearing would result in adjudicatory
harm. We find the evidence was sufficient to terminate their parental rights.
IV. Best Interests
We also find termination is in the best interests of all the children.
Throughout the entire case the parents have continued their pattern of substance
abuse. The parents have also refused to acknowledge and address significant
mental-health issues. The therapist for the older children testified they desire
permanency and stability. The parents are incapable of providing either. We find
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.T., J.T., B.G., and M.E., Minor Children E.T., Father D.L.-t., Mother, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-et-jt-bg-and-me-minor-children-et-father-iowactapp-2017.