In the Interest of L.H., Minor Child, H.G., Mother, L.H., Father
This text of In the Interest of L.H., Minor Child, H.G., Mother, L.H., Father (In the Interest of L.H., Minor Child, H.G., Mother, L.H., 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.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1097 Filed September 28, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF L.H., Minor child,
H.G., Mother, Appellant,
L.H., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Rose Anne
Mefford, District Associate Judge.
A mother and father appeal the trial court’s order terminating their
respective rights to their minor child. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Nicole L. Greenwood of Denefe, Gardner & Zingg, P.C., Ottumwa, for
appellant mother.
Michael S. Fisher of Fisher Law Office, Oskaloosa, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Dustin D. Hite of Heslinga, Dixon & Hite, Oskaloosa, guardian ad litem for
minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ. 2
MCDONALD, Judge.
A mother and father appeal from the order terminating their respective
rights in their child, L.H. (born 2013), pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(h) (2015). The mother and father contend the State did not prove by
clear and convincing evidence the statutory ground authorizing termination of
their respective rights.
The standard of review and controlling framework are well-established and
need not be repeated herein. See In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219–20 (Iowa
2016) (stating review is de novo and setting for the applicable “three-step
analysis”); In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110–13 (Iowa 2014) (same). Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(h) requires the State prove by clear and convincing evidence
the child could not be returned to the respective parent’s care at the time of the
termination hearing as provided in Iowa Code section 232.102. See Iowa Code §
232.116(1)(h)(4); In re K.P., No. 15-2078, 2016 WL 1703081, at *1 (Iowa Ct.
App. Apr. 27, 2016). To meet this burden, the State must show the child would
suffer adjudicatory harm if returned to the parents’ care. See Iowa § 232.102(5).
L.H. has a medical condition that causes her to be highly susceptible to a
variety of severe and, if not properly monitored and treated, life-threatening
ailments. She is currently undergoing testing, but her condition has not yet been
diagnosed. The medical condition has manifested itself in a variety of ways since
the time of her birth. For example, L.H. spent approximately one month in the
hospital following her birth due to respiratory difficulty. In September 2014, L.H.
was hospitalized and diagnosed with pneumonia, failure to thrive, and
hypertonia. In addition to her various ailments, L.H. was significantly 3
developmentally delayed. She was unable to walk, crawl, or sit up well past the
age when such development milestones should have been achieved. It was after
this hospitalization that the Iowa Department of Human Services intervened and
removed the child from the family.
The record reflects the mother is unable to meet the needs of this high-risk
child. The mother has significant physical and mental health needs of her own.
She has Type 1 Diabetes and struggles with meeting her own medical needs,
including failing to use the proper dosage of insulin and using old syringes. The
mother’s lack of self-care resulted in her hospitalization on at least five occasions
over the life of the case. The mother did not follow up on recommendations for
an in-home nurse and is inconsistent with seeing her primary doctor about her
diabetes. The mother was unemployed throughout the case, and she would be
unable to provide for the child’s basic necessities. An Iowa Department of
Human Services worker testified there “appeared to be a significant lapse in [the
mother’s] ability to identify the needs of her child.” While visitations with L.H.
went well, the Family Safety, Risk, and Permanency (FSRP) co-case manager
testified she had concerns about the mother’s ability to care for L.H. long term
and unsupervised, stating the mother lacked the stability and follow-through to
take care of L.H. The mother would also disappear for weeks at a time during
the pendency of this case.
The record also reflects the father was not able to meet the needs of the
child. The father was in prison at the time L.H. was removed from the mother’s
care. The father commenced visitation with L.H. after his release. Like the
mother, the father’s visitation became sporadic over the life of the case. The 4
father underwent a psychological examination and was diagnosed with an
intellectual disability, functioning at a third-grade comprehension level. The
evaluation recommended that the child could be left in the father’s care for only
several hours at a time. The father’s borderline mental functioning raise major
concerns over his ability to take care of L.H. in both the short and long term. The
FSRP case manager testified she did not believe any training, services, or
classes could make any difference in his ability to care for L.H.
Other concerns demonstrate the parents’ inability to provide for this child
without exposing her to adjudicatory harm. Both the mother and father lacked
consistent housing. The mother is a nomadic freeloader, having five residences
during the pendency of this case. Each lacks employment history demonstrating
any ability to provide for the child: the mother has none; and the father’s is
sporadic at best. The FSRP case manager testified she had concerns about
both the mother and father using illegal substances. The mother failed to comply
with substance-abuse testing, and she shaved her head to defeat a hair test.
The father has a history of alcohol abuse, but he failed to follow through with
needed treatment. On one occasion he was prevented from seeing L.H. during a
scheduled visitation because he was intoxicated. There was a history of
domestic violence between the father and mother. The mother obtained a no-
contact order against the father, but the order was later dismissed. Although the
mother and father now reside together, they never sought counseling to address
their history of domestic violence.
Given the foregoing, on de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court’s
conclusion the State proved by clear and convincing evidence L.H. could not be 5
returned to the custody of the mother and father without being subject to
adjudicatory harm and that termination of the parent’s respective rights is in the
best interests of the child. Both the mother and father had difficulty with caring
for themselves and following the recommendations of IDHS. The mother
struggles with caring for her own medical condition. See In re M.L.O., 477
N.W.2d 393, 396 (Iowa 1991) (a mother’s failure to deal with her own serious
illness was “particularly ominous in the view of the delicate health of her two
younger sons”); In re A.S., No. 12-1534, 2012 WL 5356160, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App.
Oct. 31, 2012) (“The mother’s failure or refusal to address her physical health . . .
issues places the children at imminent risk of suffering an adjudicatory harm
under the mother’s care.”). The father has a history of alcohol abuse and failed
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 L.H., Minor Child, H.G., Mother, L.H., Father, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-lh-minor-child-hg-mother-lh-father-iowactapp-2016.