In the Interest of L.L.-F. and L.L.-F., Minor Children
This text of In the Interest of L.L.-F. and L.L.-F., Minor Children (In the Interest of L.L.-F. and L.L.-F., Minor Children) 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. 22-1138 Filed September 21, 2022
IN THE INTEREST OF L.L.-F. and L.L.-F., Minor Children,
L.F., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Alexander S. Momany of Howes Law Firm, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for
appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Katherine M. Hartman Eastvold, North Liberty, attorney and guardian ad
litem for minor children.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ. 2
BOWER, Chief Judge.
L.F. challenges the termination of his parental rights regarding his children
L.L.-F. and L.L.-F., born in 2014 and 2015. On our de novo review, see In re W.M.,
957 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021), we affirm.
In August 2020, the mother sent the children to the father in Ohio to avoid
removal by the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The
father was on probation and parole at the time. No relationship or contact with the
children had occurred for several years before the placement. During the five
months the children were in his care, the father abdicated most child care to his
girlfriend. The children did not regularly attend school nor receive necessary
medical and dental care.
In December, the father tested positive for cocaine and, in January 2021,
he assaulted his girlfriend in front of the children. The older child could clearly
describe the assault and also tested positive by a hair stat for cocaine.
The mother and maternal grandmother brought the children back to Iowa.
Custody of the children was removed from both parents and transferred to DHHS
for placement with a relative. This arrangement was in effect at the time of the
termination hearing.
The father participated in domestic-violence and anger-management
classes and drug testing as part of his probation in Ohio, successfully completing
his probation in February 2022. The father remarried, and the children met his
new wife through video calls with their maternal grandmother, but DHHS was not
informed. DHHS denied the father’s subsequent request that his wife be allowed
to participate in the supervised calls. At the time of the hearing, Ohio’s human 3
services department had reported new concerns of domestic violence by the father
and the children’s younger half-sibling had been placed in foster care with the
father’s visits ordered to be fully supervised.
The children—young as they are—have told the DHHS worker they want to
remain in their current placement where they feel safe. The older child has
nightmares, has refused to attend video visits with the father at times, and refuses
in-person visits. A witness testified the older child “struggles a lot after doing visits
with [the father.]” The younger child shared he would “get whoopings all the time
with the belt.” The children have shown behavior issues in the past and are
presently engaged in therapy.
The father asserts he was “not provided any reasonable opportunity or
efforts to allow him to have any meaningful chance to reunify with his children.”1
He also briefly states the children could have been returned to his care, the court
should have provided additional time for him to reunify with the children, and the
court should have applied an exception to termination because the children were
in the care of a relative.
The father’s parental rights were terminated under Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(f) (2022).2 The first three elements are clearly met—the children are
1 The State noted in its response to the father’s petition, “[T]he exact nature of the claims being made are unclear and not fully briefed, rendering many if not most of the below claims waived.” We agree with this description. Counsel failed to identify the separate issues appealed or link what little argument is made to specific legal conclusions challenged. 2 The court may terminate parental rights under section 232. 116(1)(f) when it finds:
(1) The child is four years of age or older. (2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96. 4
over four years of age, were adjudicated children in need of assistance, and have
been removed from the father’s custody for more than a year. The father had no
relationship with the children before their placement with him; when with him in
Ohio, he did little care-taking or parenting of the children, and committed an assault
in front of them. Their brief time with the father still causes them nightmares. He
may have participated in treatment while on probation, but his lack of parenting
skills was apparent from his testimony and the stories told by the children to service
providers and others. We find the fourth element—the children cannot be returned
to the father’s custody—has been established by clear and convincing evidence.
In determining their best interests, we consider the children’s safety and the
best placement for their physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs.
Iowa Code § 232.116(2). The father offers no reason termination is not in the
children’s best interests. He has no positive relationship with the children and
failed to look after their physical, educational, and emotional needs when he had
the opportunity to do so. The children are doing well in their current placement
and an adoptive home is waiting. The children have told DHS and their guardian
ad litem they now feel safe. Significant efforts to help the children and provide for
their physical, mental, and emotional support have occurred. Termination of the
father’s parental rights and adoption is clearly in the children’s best interests.
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child’s parents for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, or for the last twelve consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days. (4) There is clear and convincing evidence that at the present time the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in section 232.102. 5
A parent has the responsibility “to object to services early in the process so
appropriate changes can be made.” In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493–94 (Iowa
2000). The only additional efforts the father requested were family therapy, in-
person visits, and a home study. The home study could have been started earlier
but was in progress at the time of the termination hearing—just awaiting the results
of background checks of the father and his wife. The children’s therapist had not
yet approved family therapy with the father. Although DHS did try to arrange some
in-person visits, these efforts were complicated by the father’s distance and other
reasons outside everyone’s control. Under the circumstances of this case,
reasonable efforts were provided.
The father also asked for additional time to achieve reunification with the
children. The court may only grant an extension when it can “enumerate the
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.L.-F. and L.L.-F., Minor Children, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-ll-f-and-ll-f-minor-children-iowactapp-2022.