IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 3-1190 / 13-1728 Filed February 5, 2014
IN THE INTEREST OF J.N., S.N., E.N., C.N., B.N., and H.N., Minor Children,
M.N., Father, Appellant,
A.N., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary Timko,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother and father appeal separately from the order terminating their
parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Patrick H. Tott, Sioux City, for appellant father.
Angela Kayl of Kayl Law Office, Sioux City, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Patrick Jennings, County Attorney, and J. Aaron Kirsch,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Joseph Kertels of Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, for minor children.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., McDonald, J., and Mahan, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2013). 2
MAHAN, S.J.
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental
rights to their six children. They each contend the State failed to prove the
grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, termination is not in
the children’s best interests, and the State failed to make reasonable efforts to
reunite them with the children. We review these claims de novo. See In re A.B.,
815 N.W.2d 764, 773 (Iowa 2012).
The family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS) in August 2011 following allegations the father sexually abused
one of the children. The children were placed in foster care that same month. 1
The court adjudicated the children to be children in need of assistance (CINA) in
October 2011 based on “a significant pattern of lack of supervision for the
children, especially those with the most special needs” and the house being
“unclean to the point of being an unsafe home in which to reside.”
Despite numerous reports of possible abuse and neglect, the parents
denied the allegations made against them. Extensive services were offered to
the parents, who did not request additional services. In spite of these services,
the DHS found the parents failed to demonstrate they had made the changes
necessary to return the children to their custody. The State filed a petition to
terminate the parents’ rights in February 2013, and following a hearing in July
1 Five of the children were returned to the mother’s care in September 2011 but were removed the following month after the father assaulted one of the children while living at the home without the DHS’s permission. The children have not returned to the home since that time. 3
2013, the juvenile court terminated both the mother’s and the father’s parental
rights to all six children.
I. Grounds for Termination.
Both parents challenge the evidence supporting the termination of their
respective parental rights. The juvenile court terminated each parent’s rights to
each of the children pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (f), and (i)
(2013). We need only find grounds to terminate under one of the subsections
cited by the juvenile court to affirm. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App.
1999). Termination is appropriate under section 232.116(1)(d) where the State
proves by clear and convincing evidence:
(1) The court has previously adjudicated the child to be a child in need of assistance after finding the child to have been physically or sexually abused or neglected as the result of the acts or omissions of one or both parents, or the court has previously adjudicated a child who is a member of the same family to be a child in need of assistance after such a finding. (2) Subsequent to the child in need of assistance adjudication, the parents were offered or received services to correct the circumstance which led to the adjudication, and the circumstance continues to exist despite the offer or receipt of services.
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(d). The parents do not dispute that the criteria of
section 232.116(1)(d)(1) has been shown. They instead argue the
circumstances that led to the CINA adjudication no longer exist.
We find clear and convincing evidence supports terminating both the
mother’s and the father’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(d). Although
the parents argue their home is now clean and habitable, the condition of the
home was only one basis for the CINA adjudication. The credible evidence
shows these children have been subjected to physical abuse and neglect while in 4
their parents’ care. While the parents argue they have assured the children this
abuse will not continue in the future, the record shows they denied the
allegations of abuse being made against them. Because they failed to take
responsibility for their actions and adequately participate in services to address
their parenting deficiencies, the circumstances that led to the CINA adjudication
continue to exist. Even though we have determined we need only find grounds
to terminate under section 232.116(1)(d), we also conclude there is clear and
convincing evidence to terminate parental rights under sections 232.116(1)(f) and
232.116(1)(i). These children simply cannot be returned to the custody of their
parents.
II. Best Interests.
The mother and the father also contend termination is not in the children’s
best interests. They argue the children are significantly bonded to them and to
each other and that termination will harm the children by severing those bonds.
They also argue their parental rights should not be terminated because some of
the children are not adoptable. They ask that even if the children are not
returned to their care, that they should be placed in another planned permanent
living arrangement so the family relationships can be maintained.
In making the best-interests determination, we give primary consideration
to the children’s safety, the best placement for furthering the children’s long-term
nurturing and growth, and the children’s physical, mental, and emotional
conditions and needs. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2); In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33,
39 (Iowa 2010). We find termination is in the children’s best interests. The two
oldest children have no desire to return to the parents’ care. The other four 5
children are more conflicted about the prospect of termination, though all four are
settled in their current placements, feel safe, and are thriving in comparison to
the condition they were in following years of abuse and neglect. The children are
finally receiving the stability and safety the parents were unable to provide. The
evidence indicates that if the children were returned to the parents’ care, they
would continue to suffer as they did previously. With the specter of abuse and
neglect hanging over a future in which they are returned to the parents’ care,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 3-1190 / 13-1728 Filed February 5, 2014
IN THE INTEREST OF J.N., S.N., E.N., C.N., B.N., and H.N., Minor Children,
M.N., Father, Appellant,
A.N., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary Timko,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother and father appeal separately from the order terminating their
parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Patrick H. Tott, Sioux City, for appellant father.
Angela Kayl of Kayl Law Office, Sioux City, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Patrick Jennings, County Attorney, and J. Aaron Kirsch,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Joseph Kertels of Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, for minor children.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., McDonald, J., and Mahan, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2013). 2
MAHAN, S.J.
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental
rights to their six children. They each contend the State failed to prove the
grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, termination is not in
the children’s best interests, and the State failed to make reasonable efforts to
reunite them with the children. We review these claims de novo. See In re A.B.,
815 N.W.2d 764, 773 (Iowa 2012).
The family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS) in August 2011 following allegations the father sexually abused
one of the children. The children were placed in foster care that same month. 1
The court adjudicated the children to be children in need of assistance (CINA) in
October 2011 based on “a significant pattern of lack of supervision for the
children, especially those with the most special needs” and the house being
“unclean to the point of being an unsafe home in which to reside.”
Despite numerous reports of possible abuse and neglect, the parents
denied the allegations made against them. Extensive services were offered to
the parents, who did not request additional services. In spite of these services,
the DHS found the parents failed to demonstrate they had made the changes
necessary to return the children to their custody. The State filed a petition to
terminate the parents’ rights in February 2013, and following a hearing in July
1 Five of the children were returned to the mother’s care in September 2011 but were removed the following month after the father assaulted one of the children while living at the home without the DHS’s permission. The children have not returned to the home since that time. 3
2013, the juvenile court terminated both the mother’s and the father’s parental
rights to all six children.
I. Grounds for Termination.
Both parents challenge the evidence supporting the termination of their
respective parental rights. The juvenile court terminated each parent’s rights to
each of the children pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (f), and (i)
(2013). We need only find grounds to terminate under one of the subsections
cited by the juvenile court to affirm. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App.
1999). Termination is appropriate under section 232.116(1)(d) where the State
proves by clear and convincing evidence:
(1) The court has previously adjudicated the child to be a child in need of assistance after finding the child to have been physically or sexually abused or neglected as the result of the acts or omissions of one or both parents, or the court has previously adjudicated a child who is a member of the same family to be a child in need of assistance after such a finding. (2) Subsequent to the child in need of assistance adjudication, the parents were offered or received services to correct the circumstance which led to the adjudication, and the circumstance continues to exist despite the offer or receipt of services.
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(d). The parents do not dispute that the criteria of
section 232.116(1)(d)(1) has been shown. They instead argue the
circumstances that led to the CINA adjudication no longer exist.
We find clear and convincing evidence supports terminating both the
mother’s and the father’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(d). Although
the parents argue their home is now clean and habitable, the condition of the
home was only one basis for the CINA adjudication. The credible evidence
shows these children have been subjected to physical abuse and neglect while in 4
their parents’ care. While the parents argue they have assured the children this
abuse will not continue in the future, the record shows they denied the
allegations of abuse being made against them. Because they failed to take
responsibility for their actions and adequately participate in services to address
their parenting deficiencies, the circumstances that led to the CINA adjudication
continue to exist. Even though we have determined we need only find grounds
to terminate under section 232.116(1)(d), we also conclude there is clear and
convincing evidence to terminate parental rights under sections 232.116(1)(f) and
232.116(1)(i). These children simply cannot be returned to the custody of their
parents.
II. Best Interests.
The mother and the father also contend termination is not in the children’s
best interests. They argue the children are significantly bonded to them and to
each other and that termination will harm the children by severing those bonds.
They also argue their parental rights should not be terminated because some of
the children are not adoptable. They ask that even if the children are not
returned to their care, that they should be placed in another planned permanent
living arrangement so the family relationships can be maintained.
In making the best-interests determination, we give primary consideration
to the children’s safety, the best placement for furthering the children’s long-term
nurturing and growth, and the children’s physical, mental, and emotional
conditions and needs. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2); In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33,
39 (Iowa 2010). We find termination is in the children’s best interests. The two
oldest children have no desire to return to the parents’ care. The other four 5
children are more conflicted about the prospect of termination, though all four are
settled in their current placements, feel safe, and are thriving in comparison to
the condition they were in following years of abuse and neglect. The children are
finally receiving the stability and safety the parents were unable to provide. The
evidence indicates that if the children were returned to the parents’ care, they
would continue to suffer as they did previously. With the specter of abuse and
neglect hanging over a future in which they are returned to the parents’ care,
termination is in the children’s best interests. We further find it is not the
children’s best interests to preserve the parent-child relationship while the
children remain in long-term foster care; the risk of harm these parents pose if
the parent-child relationship is continued is simply too great.
III. Reasonable Efforts.
Finally, the mother and the father both contend the State failed to make
reasonable efforts to reunite them with the children. The State must show
reasonable efforts as part of its ultimate proof the children cannot be safely
returned to the parents’ care, but it is not viewed as a strict substantive
requirement of termination. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000).
Rather, the scope of the DHS’s efforts to reunify the parents and children after
removal impacts the State’s burden of proving the elements of termination that
required reunification efforts. Id.
Upon our de novo review, we find both parents were offered services, but
that they failed to adequately follow through with those services and make
lifestyle changes that would assure the children’s safety. The parents cannot
identify any services they were not offered that would have changed the outcome 6
of this case. In order to make the changes necessary to allow them to safely
parent the children, the mother and the father needed to acknowledge their
parenting deficiencies and put forth a genuine effort to improve by participating in
the services already offered. They failed to do so. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.