IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1970 Filed January 28, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF J.G. and J.G., Minor Children,
J.G., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Gary K,
Anderson, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two children.
AFFIRMED.
Roberta J. Megel, State Public Defender’s Office, Council Bluffs, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Matthew Wilber, County Attorney, and Dawn M. Landon,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Maura C. Goaley, Council Bluffs, for mother.
Phil R. Caniglia, Council Bluffs, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ. 2
BOWER, J.
A father appeals from the termination of his parental rights to his two
children.1 The father claims the State failed to prove by clear and convincing
evidence the circumstances that led to the initiation of these proceedings no
longer exist, as he is now employed, has consistent housing, and is no longer
using illegal substances. We find the State proved by clear and convincing
evidence the father’s rights to his two children should be terminated. We affirm
the juvenile court order.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The children, J.G. and J.G., were born in 2011 and 2012, respectively.
The Department of Human Services (DHS) began working with the mother and
father in August 2013, due to issues with substance abuse and lack of
employment and housing. The DHS offered the parents chemical dependency
evaluations and recommendations; family support; family safety, risk, and
permanency (FSRP) services; and case management. Due to lack of
compliance and follow-through with the DHS services, the State filed a child-in-
need-of-assistance (CINA) petition on October 11, 2013. On October 18, a
temporary removal hearing was held. Both parents admitted to using marijuana.
The court also noted the father had failed to follow through with various
appointments. The court found, based on the parents’ noncompliance with
services and demonstrated inability to care for the children, the children were at
risk of harm and removed them from the parents’ custody.
1 The mother does not appeal. 3
In November, a CINA adjudicatory hearing was held. The court made
similar findings to those made in the temporary removal hearing. The court
found the children were CINA pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2), (g),
(n), and (o) (2013). A dispositional hearing was held in December, and the father
did not appear. The court found the father was inconsistent in meeting with the
FSRP provider and the father did not have a permanent address or a phone
number. The father also had not provided any drug screens. Although he
claimed to have completed a chemical dependency evaluation, the DHS reported
it had not received an updated evaluation of the father, and the father was not
attending treatment as he reported. Finally, the court noted little progress had
been made by the parents towards reunification with the children. The court
ordered that the children should remain out of their parents’ custody.
A termination hearing was held on September 22, 2014. An order was
issued on November 12, terminating the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (e), (h), (i), and (l). In support of its order, the court
generally cited the father’s failure to provide any proof of chemical dependency
treatment, his lack of participation in random drug screens, and his lack of
cooperation with services. The father now appeals.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Our review of termination decisions is de novo. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33,
40 (Iowa 2010). We give weight to the juvenile court’s findings, especially
assessing witness credibility, although we are not bound by them. In re D.W.,
791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). An order terminating parental rights will be 4
upheld if there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination under
section 232.116. Id. Evidence is “clear and convincing” when there are no
serious or substantial doubts as to the correctness of the conclusions of law
drawn from the evidence. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
Iowa Code chapter 232, concerning the termination of parental rights,
follows a three-step analysis. P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 39. The court must first
determine whether a ground for termination under section 232.116(1) has been
established. Id. If a ground for termination has been established, the court must
apply the best-interest framework set out in section 232.116(2) to decide if the
grounds for termination should result in termination of parental rights. Id. Finally,
if the statutory best-interest framework supports termination of parental rights,
the court must consider if any of the statutory exceptions set out in section
232.116(3) weigh against the termination of parental rights. Id.
A. Grounds for Termination
When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one
statutory ground, we may affirm the order on any ground we find supported by
the record. D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707. Under section 232.116(1)(e), termination
may be ordered if the child was adjudicated a CINA, the child has been removed
from the parents’ physical custody for a period of at least six consecutive months,
and “[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that the parents have not
maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child during the previous
six consecutive months and have made no reasonable efforts to resume care of 5
the child despite being given the opportunity to do so.” Iowa Code §
232.116(1)(e). The father claims the State failed to prove by “clear and
convincing evidence” all three prongs of 232.116(1)(e) were met. He specifically
claims there is not “clear and convincing evidence” he has not maintained
“significant and meaningful contact” with the children.
We agree with the court that termination of the father’s parental rights is
proper. Clear and convincing evidence shows the father has not substantially
remedied the circumstances that led to the initial adjudication. Over the course of
this proceeding, the father has failed to maintain consistent visitation with the
children. From November 21, 2013, through February 7, 2014, the father had no
contact with the children. From February through May, the father had four visits
with the children. Recently, from July through September the father had more
visits with the children. While the father has shown some improvement in
attending the scheduled visitations, we agree with the juvenile court the children
deserve permanency now and should not have to wait for their father to
demonstrate he might be able to parent them at some point in the future. See In
re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458, 474 (Iowa Ct. App.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1970 Filed January 28, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF J.G. and J.G., Minor Children,
J.G., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Gary K,
Anderson, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two children.
AFFIRMED.
Roberta J. Megel, State Public Defender’s Office, Council Bluffs, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Matthew Wilber, County Attorney, and Dawn M. Landon,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Maura C. Goaley, Council Bluffs, for mother.
Phil R. Caniglia, Council Bluffs, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ. 2
BOWER, J.
A father appeals from the termination of his parental rights to his two
children.1 The father claims the State failed to prove by clear and convincing
evidence the circumstances that led to the initiation of these proceedings no
longer exist, as he is now employed, has consistent housing, and is no longer
using illegal substances. We find the State proved by clear and convincing
evidence the father’s rights to his two children should be terminated. We affirm
the juvenile court order.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The children, J.G. and J.G., were born in 2011 and 2012, respectively.
The Department of Human Services (DHS) began working with the mother and
father in August 2013, due to issues with substance abuse and lack of
employment and housing. The DHS offered the parents chemical dependency
evaluations and recommendations; family support; family safety, risk, and
permanency (FSRP) services; and case management. Due to lack of
compliance and follow-through with the DHS services, the State filed a child-in-
need-of-assistance (CINA) petition on October 11, 2013. On October 18, a
temporary removal hearing was held. Both parents admitted to using marijuana.
The court also noted the father had failed to follow through with various
appointments. The court found, based on the parents’ noncompliance with
services and demonstrated inability to care for the children, the children were at
risk of harm and removed them from the parents’ custody.
1 The mother does not appeal. 3
In November, a CINA adjudicatory hearing was held. The court made
similar findings to those made in the temporary removal hearing. The court
found the children were CINA pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2), (g),
(n), and (o) (2013). A dispositional hearing was held in December, and the father
did not appear. The court found the father was inconsistent in meeting with the
FSRP provider and the father did not have a permanent address or a phone
number. The father also had not provided any drug screens. Although he
claimed to have completed a chemical dependency evaluation, the DHS reported
it had not received an updated evaluation of the father, and the father was not
attending treatment as he reported. Finally, the court noted little progress had
been made by the parents towards reunification with the children. The court
ordered that the children should remain out of their parents’ custody.
A termination hearing was held on September 22, 2014. An order was
issued on November 12, terminating the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (e), (h), (i), and (l). In support of its order, the court
generally cited the father’s failure to provide any proof of chemical dependency
treatment, his lack of participation in random drug screens, and his lack of
cooperation with services. The father now appeals.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Our review of termination decisions is de novo. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33,
40 (Iowa 2010). We give weight to the juvenile court’s findings, especially
assessing witness credibility, although we are not bound by them. In re D.W.,
791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). An order terminating parental rights will be 4
upheld if there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination under
section 232.116. Id. Evidence is “clear and convincing” when there are no
serious or substantial doubts as to the correctness of the conclusions of law
drawn from the evidence. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
Iowa Code chapter 232, concerning the termination of parental rights,
follows a three-step analysis. P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 39. The court must first
determine whether a ground for termination under section 232.116(1) has been
established. Id. If a ground for termination has been established, the court must
apply the best-interest framework set out in section 232.116(2) to decide if the
grounds for termination should result in termination of parental rights. Id. Finally,
if the statutory best-interest framework supports termination of parental rights,
the court must consider if any of the statutory exceptions set out in section
232.116(3) weigh against the termination of parental rights. Id.
A. Grounds for Termination
When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one
statutory ground, we may affirm the order on any ground we find supported by
the record. D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707. Under section 232.116(1)(e), termination
may be ordered if the child was adjudicated a CINA, the child has been removed
from the parents’ physical custody for a period of at least six consecutive months,
and “[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that the parents have not
maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child during the previous
six consecutive months and have made no reasonable efforts to resume care of 5
the child despite being given the opportunity to do so.” Iowa Code §
232.116(1)(e). The father claims the State failed to prove by “clear and
convincing evidence” all three prongs of 232.116(1)(e) were met. He specifically
claims there is not “clear and convincing evidence” he has not maintained
“significant and meaningful contact” with the children.
We agree with the court that termination of the father’s parental rights is
proper. Clear and convincing evidence shows the father has not substantially
remedied the circumstances that led to the initial adjudication. Over the course of
this proceeding, the father has failed to maintain consistent visitation with the
children. From November 21, 2013, through February 7, 2014, the father had no
contact with the children. From February through May, the father had four visits
with the children. Recently, from July through September the father had more
visits with the children. While the father has shown some improvement in
attending the scheduled visitations, we agree with the juvenile court the children
deserve permanency now and should not have to wait for their father to
demonstrate he might be able to parent them at some point in the future. See In
re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458, 474 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (“We will not gamble with a
child’s future by asking him to continuously wait for a stable biological parent,
particularly at such a tender age.”). Additionally, while the father claims he is
currently employed, he has failed to provide pay stubs as proof of his
employment. The father has also failed to respond to the other services offered
by the DHS. The father has only completed one drug test, which was positive for
marijuana at twelve times the cutoff level for a positive drug test. He has failed to 6
provide any proof of his claimed chemical dependency treatment. The father has
not found a residence to call his own.2
For these reasons, we find there is “clear and convincing evidence” the
father has not maintained “significant and meaningful contact” with the children.
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e)(3). We find clear and convincing evidence supports the
termination of the father’s parental rights.
B. Best Interests of the Child
Even if a statutory ground for termination is met, a decision to terminate
must still be in the best interests of a child after a review of section 232.116(2).
P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 37. In determining the best interests of the child, we 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 conditions and needs of the child.” See Iowa Code § 232.116(2). For
the reasons listed above, we find it is in the best interests of the children to
terminate the father’s parental rights.
IV. CONCLUSION
There is clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination exist
under section 232.116(1)(e), termination of the father’s parental rights is in the
children’s best interests pursuant to section 232.116(2), and no consequential
factor weighing against termination in section 232.116(3) requires a different
conclusion. Accordingly, we affirm termination of the father’s parental rights.
2 The father currently lives with his mother. The father has testified his mother’s house is not suitable for the children.