In the Interest of H.E., Minor Child, L.E., Mother, M.E., Father

Court of Appeals of Iowa

In the Interest of H.E., Minor Child, L.E., Mother, M.E., Father

DecidedMarch 11, 2015

Docket14-1573

StatusPublished

This text of In the Interest of H.E., Minor Child, L.E., Mother, M.E., Father (In the Interest of H.E., Minor Child, L.E., Mother, M.E., Father) 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 H.E., Minor Child, L.E., Mother, M.E., Father, (iowactapp 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14-1573 Filed March 11, 2015

IN THE INTEREST OF H.E., Minor Child,

L.E., Mother, Appellant,

M.E., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Rose Ann

Mefford, District Associate Judge.

Parents separately appeal from the termination of their parental rights.

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

Dennis E. McKelvie of McKelvie Law Office, Grinnell, for appellant mother.

Michael S. Fisher of Fisher Law Office, Oskaloosa, for appellant father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant

Attorney General, and Rebecca L. Petig, County Attorney, for appellee State.

Fred Steifel, Victor, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ. 2

POTTERFIELD, J.

The mother and father of H.E., born in May 2010, separately appeal the

termination of their parental rights. Upon our de novo review, it is clear that the

child who had been adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) was four

years of age, had been out of the parents’ custody for more than the last twelve

consecutive months, and could not be returned to their custody at the present

time. We also conclude termination of parental rights will allow the child to gain

the permanency she deserves. Finding no resistance to the juvenile court’s

order on remand conforming the amended petition to the proof, we affirm the

termination of each parent’s parental rights under Iowa Code section

232.116(1)(f) (2013).

I. Scope and Standard of Review.

We conduct a de novo review of termination-of-parental-rights

proceedings. In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). On appeal, we

affirm the juvenile court’s termination order on any ground alleged that we find

supported by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 707.

II. Background Facts.

On January 2, 2013, the child came to the attention of the department of

human services and the juvenile court when a search warrant was executed on

the home in which the mother and child resided with several others. The

application for temporary removal asserted that when the warrant was executed,

needles were found that had blood on them and tested positive for

methamphetamine. Also found was a mirror with white residue on it. The

needles and mirror were accessible to H.E. The mother attributed the drug 3

paraphernalia to the child’s uncle, but later admitted using methamphetamine in

the month prior to the removal, as well as using marijuana regularly. H.E.’s

father was in jail at the time for a probation violation. A child abuse assessment

found the mother had failed to provide critical care.

The child was removed from the parents’ custody and placed in the care

of the paternal grandfather. While he has provided a caring and loving home for

the child, he informed the juvenile court he is not a permanent option for the child

due to his age (eighty-three years old at the time of the termination trial).

The child was adjudicated CINA on February 14, 2013, by reason of the

mother’s failure to exercise a reasonable degree of care in supervising the child,

the parents’ drug abuse, and the father’s incarceration.

The mother was ordered to submit to random drug screens and to obtain

substance abuse and mental health evaluations. She failed to provide drug

screens on a number of occasions. She did obtain a substance abuse

evaluation, which recommended extended outpatient treatment. The mother

began substance abuse treatment; however, in December 2013 the mother was

unsuccessfully discharged from substance abuse treatment for lack of

attendance. She continually resisted getting a mental health evaluation ordered

by the juvenile court in June 2013. She did not move beyond supervised visits.

The father, in October 2012, was found in possession of

methamphetamine while on probation. He was convicted and began serving a

prison term. He was not available for services during the pendency of the CINA

proceedings. The grandfather took the child to visit the father in prison almost

every week. 4

A petition to terminate parental rights was filed on October 22, 2013. The

trial was held on January 28 and February 7, 2014. The mother testified the

drugs found during the warrant execution belonged to her brother, H.E.’s uncle.

Four generations of family members were living in the house at the time: H.E.’s

great-grandmother (who owned the house), H.E.’s grandmother (who was ill),

H.E.’s mother, H.E.’s uncle, and H.E. and her half-sister. The mother stated she

had to be there at the house to care for her ailing mother, who died in December

2013. She further testified she had tried to convince others that H.E.’s uncle

needed to leave the house. She testified he was no longer in the house as he

had been convicted and imprisoned, so it was she and her grandmother in the

house at present. The mother was not employed. She was not in substance

abuse treatment. She denied the need for a mental health evaluation or

treatment.

The father was still in prison but testified he was participating in substance

abuse treatment and hoped to be paroled in March. He testified he had been

prescribed medication for mental health issues1 while in prison and planned to

continue with those upon his release. He asked that the court allow him a six-

month extension of time to participate in services and show he was able to have

his child back in his care. On cross-examination, the father acknowledged he

had a lengthy history of drug abuse and criminal convictions.2 He also

1 The father testified he had “a very bad anxiety problem.” 2 He acknowledged a 2001 controlled-substance conviction, a 2005 controlled-substance conviction, a November 2011 prescription-drug conviction, and a February 2013 possession-of-controlled-substance conviction, third offense. 5

acknowledged he was living in his father’s home in the basement apartment3

when he was arrested for drug related offenses—first in June 2011 (for a

urinalysis “dirty” with “a prescription drug and marijuana”) and again in October

2012 (for possession of methamphetamine).

The paternal grandfather testified he was willing to continue to care for the

child temporarily when the father was released from prison. Both the father and

grandfather testified that if parental rights were terminated, the child should be

placed with a relative, Becky.

The court reconsidered and granted the father’s motion to reopen the

record, and further testimony was received on July 11, 2014. The father testified

he had been released from prison in March 2014. He moved into the paternal

grandfather’s basement apartment. The child also resided with the grandfather,

and the father helped care for the child, although always supervised. He was

working twelve-hour shifts from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. He was providing drug screens

and meeting regularly with his parole officer. The father was taking medications

for anxiety, depression, and insomnia. He testified he was ready to care of H.E.

The department of human services worker testified the mother had made

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