In the Interest of H.F., Minor Child
This text of In the Interest of H.F., Minor Child (In the Interest of H.F., Minor Child) 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. 20-0278 Filed April 29, 2020
IN THE INTEREST OF H.F., Minor Child,
T.F., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Franklin County, Peter B. Newell,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Barbara J. Westphal, Belmond, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Meredith L. Lamberti, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Alesha M. Sigmeth Roberts of Sigmeth Roberts Law, PLC, Clarion, attorney
and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Danilson, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2020). 2
DANILSON, Senior Judge.
A father appeals the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights. The
father does not dispute the statutory basis for termination of his rights. We find
termination of his parental rights is in the child’s best interests. We also conclude
it would not be in the child’s best interests to grant the father an additional six
months to work on reunification. We affirm the juvenile court’s decision terminating
the father’s parental rights.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
T.F., father, and M.F., mother, are the parents of H.F., born in 2018. 1 The
parents have a history of domestic violence, problems with substance abuse, and
mental-health concerns. When the child was two and one-half weeks old, both
parents were arrested for violating a no-contact order. The parents informally
placed the child in the care of the maternal grandmother. Upon release from jail,
the father was homeless and was using methamphetamine.
On February 5, 2019, the child was adjudicated to be in need of assistance
(CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2018). The court determined
the child should be removed from the parents’ care. The child continued in the
care of the maternal grandmother.
The father had limited involvement in services. The father did not complete
a substance-abuse or mental-health evaluation. He did not maintain stable
housing. He had pending drug-related criminal charges. The father was
1 The mother consented to termination of her parental rights. She has not appealed the termination order. 3
inconsistent in attending visitation—participating in only five visits during the CINA
proceedings.
On November 1, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate the parents’
rights. On December 3, the father had a hair test that was negative for illegal
substances. A urine test on the same day, however, was positive for marijuana.
This was the father’s only drug test. He did not appear for other requested drug
tests.
The termination hearing began on December 16. The proceedings were
not completed that day, and the hearing recommenced on January 27, 2020. The
father had opportunities for visitation between the hearing dates but did not take
advantage of them. The father did not appear for the second day of the hearing,
although his attorney was present.
The court terminated the father’s rights under section 232.116(1)(h) (2019).
The court stated:
The child’s father is essentially homeless. He has a substance abuse problem. He has not been able to meet his own needs at this time. The child’s father is not participating in mental health or substance abuse treatment. The child’s father is not participating in random drug testing or any other services offered by the Department of Human Services to facilitate the return of this child to the father’s care. The father failed to appear at the [second day of the] termination hearing after having been offered transportation by the Department of Human Services.
The court concluded termination of the father’s rights was in the child’s best
interests. The father appeals.
II. Standard of Review
Our review of termination proceedings is de novo. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d
764, 773 (Iowa 2012). The State must prove its allegations for termination by clear 4
and convincing evidence. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). “‘Clear
and convincing evidence’ means there are no serious or substantial doubts as to
the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.” Id. Our primary
concern is the best interests of the child. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa
2014).
III. Best Interests
The father does not dispute the statutory basis for termination of his rights.
He claims termination of his parental rights is not in the child’s best interests. He
points out that he had a negative drug test. He also states he participated in
visitation and was able to locate housing.
“When we consider whether parental rights should be terminated, we ‘shall
give primary consideration to the child’s safety, to the best placement for furthering
the long-term nurturing and growth of the child, and to the physical, mental, and
emotional condition and needs of the child.’” In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 224
(Iowa 2016) (quoting 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.” In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d
33, 41 (Iowa 2010).
The father is not able to provide for the child’s needs. He has a difficult time
meeting his own needs. He has not addressed his substance-abuse or mental-
health problems. He had only limited participation in visitation with the child. The
maternal grandmother is interested in adopting the child. We conclude termination
of the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests. 5
IV. Extension of Time
At the termination hearing, the father asked for an additional six months to
work on reunification with his child. The juvenile court did not directly address this
issue, although by proceeding with termination of the father’s parental rights the
court effectively denied his request for more time.
Section 232.104(2)(b) permits the juvenile court “to continue placement of
the child for an additional six months.” The court may grant an extension of time
under this provision based on a “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). In determining whether an extension
of time should be granted, the court’s primary consideration is the best interests of
the child. See In re R.C., 523 N.W.2d 757, 760 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994).
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 H.F., Minor Child, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-hf-minor-child-iowactapp-2020.