IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0333 Filed July 21, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF M.B. and E.T., Minor Children,
J.B., Father, Appellant,
K.T., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph L. Tofilon,
District Associate Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective
parental rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Brandon J. Dodgen of Conrad & Lemmenes, Humboldt, for appellant father.
Alesha M. Sigmeth Roberts of Sigmeth Roberts Law, PLC, Clarion, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Sarah Livingston, Fort Dodge, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ. 2
MAY, Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective
parental rights to their children, M.B. and E.T. They challenge (1) the statutory
grounds supporting termination, (2) whether termination is in the children’s best
interests, and (3) the juvenile court’s refusal to grant them additional time to work
toward reunification. We affirm as to both parents.
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re Z.P., 948 N.W.2d 518,
522 (Iowa 2020). “We will uphold an order terminating parental rights where there
is clear and convincing evidence of the statutory grounds for termination. Evidence
is clear and convincing when there is no serious or substantial doubt as to the
correctness of the conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.” In re T.S., 868
N.W.2d 425, 431 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (citation omitted).
We generally use a three-step analysis to review the termination of a
parent’s rights. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018). We consider:
(1) whether grounds for termination have been established, (2) whether
termination is in the children’s best interests, and (3) whether we should exercise
any of the permissive exceptions to termination. Id. at 472–73. “However, if a
parent does not challenge a step in our analysis, we need not address it.” In re
J.P., No. 19-1633, 2020 WL 110425, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020). Then we
address any additional claims raised by the parents. In re K.M., No. 19-1637, 2020
WL 110408, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020).
Both parents challenge the statutory grounds authorizing termination. With
respect to E.T., the juvenile court found a ground for termination under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(f) (2020). Paragraph (f) authorizes termination when: 3
(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. (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.
With respect to M.B., the juvenile court found a ground authorizing termination
under section 232.116(1)(h). It authorizes the termination of parental rights when:
(1) The child is three years of age or younger. (2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96. (3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child’s parents for at least six months of the last twelve months, or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days. (4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in section 232.102 at the present time.
The fourth element of 232.116(1)(f) is the same as the fourth element of
section 232.116(1)(h). The parents limit their challenges to this fourth element,
whether E.T. and M.B. could be returned to their home. The fourth element is
satisfied when the State establishes a child cannot be safely returned to the parent
at the time of the termination hearing. In re T.W., No. 20-0145, 2020 WL 1881115,
at *2–3 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2020).
Our de novo review of the record makes clear the children cannot be safely
returned to either parent.1 Both parents have significant and unresolved mental-
1 Both parents argue there is no evidence of an ongoing risk of harm to the children based on the parents’ persistent marijuana use. But even without consideration of their drug use, there is overwhelming evidence of an ongoing risk of harm to the children as discussed in this opinion. 4
health issues, which impede their ability to adequately parent. See In re H.L., No.
18-1975, 2019 WL 478903, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2019). With respect to the
mother, she testified that she has been diagnosed with depression, bipolar
disorder, borderline personality disorder, dissociative disorder, PTSD, OCD, ODD,
and ADHD. She has made threats of suicide multiple times and has asked law
enforcement to kill her multiple times. In fact, in September 2020, the mother
attempted to hang herself by wrapping a phone cord around her neck while in the
county jail after being arrested for public intoxication. Her behavior is erratic: she
threated to kill the social worker involved in this case; she texted the social worker
“do ur fucking job Rachel fuck ur cunt ass supervisor”; she jumped out of two
different caseworkers’ moving cars when she did not like the conversation; and
she cut herself and wrote a goodbye letter to her children. As recently as February
2021, police were called to the family home to check on the mother. She
repeatedly told officers, “I just want to die.” She described herself as “a very
mentally ill person” and “not mentally stable for jail” and stated she “ended up killing
[her]self” the last time she was in jail. Then she threw the family cat down a
staircase. And when she testified on the third day of the termination hearing, her
testimony was disjointed, rambling, erratic, and often unresponsive to the
questions asked.2
The father faces similar problems. He testified he has been diagnosed with
bipolar II disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and manic depression. He has
2The termination hearing took place over three days: January 6, 2021; February 3; and March 2. 5
also made suicidal statements. He has difficultly controlling his emotions, which
sometimes manifests in harmful conduct.
The children are also endangered by the parents’ relationship, which has
been plagued by domestic violence. Indeed, this case began back in 2017 when
the parents got into an argument in the car, the mother drove at speeds in excess
of 100 miles per hour, and got into an accident—all while E.T. was in the car. The
mother hits the father, throws things at him, and yells at him. She strangled the
father with a phone cord. And she dumped the father’s medication in the toilet
when they got into an argument. During one dispute, the father threw the family
cat, breaking the cat’s leg. Another time, the father got upset with the mother and
punched a wall, hurting his hand. And both parents reported each other for
perpetrating domestic violence during the last one-month reporting period prior to
the termination proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0333 Filed July 21, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF M.B. and E.T., Minor Children,
J.B., Father, Appellant,
K.T., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph L. Tofilon,
District Associate Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective
parental rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Brandon J. Dodgen of Conrad & Lemmenes, Humboldt, for appellant father.
Alesha M. Sigmeth Roberts of Sigmeth Roberts Law, PLC, Clarion, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Sarah Livingston, Fort Dodge, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ. 2
MAY, Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective
parental rights to their children, M.B. and E.T. They challenge (1) the statutory
grounds supporting termination, (2) whether termination is in the children’s best
interests, and (3) the juvenile court’s refusal to grant them additional time to work
toward reunification. We affirm as to both parents.
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re Z.P., 948 N.W.2d 518,
522 (Iowa 2020). “We will uphold an order terminating parental rights where there
is clear and convincing evidence of the statutory grounds for termination. Evidence
is clear and convincing when there is no serious or substantial doubt as to the
correctness of the conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.” In re T.S., 868
N.W.2d 425, 431 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (citation omitted).
We generally use a three-step analysis to review the termination of a
parent’s rights. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018). We consider:
(1) whether grounds for termination have been established, (2) whether
termination is in the children’s best interests, and (3) whether we should exercise
any of the permissive exceptions to termination. Id. at 472–73. “However, if a
parent does not challenge a step in our analysis, we need not address it.” In re
J.P., No. 19-1633, 2020 WL 110425, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020). Then we
address any additional claims raised by the parents. In re K.M., No. 19-1637, 2020
WL 110408, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020).
Both parents challenge the statutory grounds authorizing termination. With
respect to E.T., the juvenile court found a ground for termination under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(f) (2020). Paragraph (f) authorizes termination when: 3
(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. (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.
With respect to M.B., the juvenile court found a ground authorizing termination
under section 232.116(1)(h). It authorizes the termination of parental rights when:
(1) The child is three years of age or younger. (2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96. (3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child’s parents for at least six months of the last twelve months, or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days. (4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in section 232.102 at the present time.
The fourth element of 232.116(1)(f) is the same as the fourth element of
section 232.116(1)(h). The parents limit their challenges to this fourth element,
whether E.T. and M.B. could be returned to their home. The fourth element is
satisfied when the State establishes a child cannot be safely returned to the parent
at the time of the termination hearing. In re T.W., No. 20-0145, 2020 WL 1881115,
at *2–3 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2020).
Our de novo review of the record makes clear the children cannot be safely
returned to either parent.1 Both parents have significant and unresolved mental-
1 Both parents argue there is no evidence of an ongoing risk of harm to the children based on the parents’ persistent marijuana use. But even without consideration of their drug use, there is overwhelming evidence of an ongoing risk of harm to the children as discussed in this opinion. 4
health issues, which impede their ability to adequately parent. See In re H.L., No.
18-1975, 2019 WL 478903, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2019). With respect to the
mother, she testified that she has been diagnosed with depression, bipolar
disorder, borderline personality disorder, dissociative disorder, PTSD, OCD, ODD,
and ADHD. She has made threats of suicide multiple times and has asked law
enforcement to kill her multiple times. In fact, in September 2020, the mother
attempted to hang herself by wrapping a phone cord around her neck while in the
county jail after being arrested for public intoxication. Her behavior is erratic: she
threated to kill the social worker involved in this case; she texted the social worker
“do ur fucking job Rachel fuck ur cunt ass supervisor”; she jumped out of two
different caseworkers’ moving cars when she did not like the conversation; and
she cut herself and wrote a goodbye letter to her children. As recently as February
2021, police were called to the family home to check on the mother. She
repeatedly told officers, “I just want to die.” She described herself as “a very
mentally ill person” and “not mentally stable for jail” and stated she “ended up killing
[her]self” the last time she was in jail. Then she threw the family cat down a
staircase. And when she testified on the third day of the termination hearing, her
testimony was disjointed, rambling, erratic, and often unresponsive to the
questions asked.2
The father faces similar problems. He testified he has been diagnosed with
bipolar II disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and manic depression. He has
2The termination hearing took place over three days: January 6, 2021; February 3; and March 2. 5
also made suicidal statements. He has difficultly controlling his emotions, which
sometimes manifests in harmful conduct.
The children are also endangered by the parents’ relationship, which has
been plagued by domestic violence. Indeed, this case began back in 2017 when
the parents got into an argument in the car, the mother drove at speeds in excess
of 100 miles per hour, and got into an accident—all while E.T. was in the car. The
mother hits the father, throws things at him, and yells at him. She strangled the
father with a phone cord. And she dumped the father’s medication in the toilet
when they got into an argument. During one dispute, the father threw the family
cat, breaking the cat’s leg. Another time, the father got upset with the mother and
punched a wall, hurting his hand. And both parents reported each other for
perpetrating domestic violence during the last one-month reporting period prior to
the termination proceedings. Yet the parents do not appear to appreciate the
damage children suffer when they are exposed to domestic violence. Cf. T.S., 868
N.W.2d at 435; In re L.C.-M., No. 20-1661, 2021 WL 140072, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App.
Apr. 14, 2021); In re B.S., No. 20-1463, 2021 WL 609093, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App.
Feb. 17, 2021).
Moreover, the parents’ lives are generally too unstable to safely care for the
children. Cf. H.L., 2019 WL 478903, at *1 (collecting cases where a parent’s lack
of employment and stable housing weighed in favor of termination). They are
currently unemployed and only briefly had jobs. For a time, the father lived with
his brother, but the mother was not allowed to live with them. So the mother lived
in a storage garage. While the father lived with his brother, the two used
methamphetamine together because “it was kind of a bonding thing between” 6
them. Eventually, the parents moved back in together. But they are not current
on their rent, and their landlord has started the eviction process. The only reason
that process has stalled is the temporary moratorium on evictions issued in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. So we cannot consider their current housing
to be stable.
In light of these facts, we conclude the juvenile court correctly determined
the children could not be safely returned to the parents.
We move on to the second step in our analysis, which requires us to
determine whether termination is in the children’s best interests. We “give primary
consideration to the child[ren]’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the
long-term nurturing and growth of the child[ren], and to the physical, mental, and
emotional condition and needs of the child.” In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa
2010) (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.” Id. at 41.
When determining whether termination is in the children’s best interests, we
look to the parents’ past performance as an indicator of the care they are likely to
provide in the future. See In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). And here
the parents’ past performance raises substantial concerns about the future.
Although this case has been open for more than three years, the parents have
made little to no progress. When looking toward the future, we anticipate the
parents will continue to struggle with their mental health, housing, domestic 7
violence, and substance abuse. We do not envision an environment compatible
with fostering the children to maturity.
Plus, these children are in desperate need of permanency. As the social
worker put it, “the kids are struggling.” E.T. has behavior issues stemming from
his lack of permanency, and M.B. is beginning to display similar behaviors. But
there is hope. The children are bonded to their foster parents in a pre-adoptive
home. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2)(b). And termination would free them to reach
true permanency through adoption. So we conclude termination is in the children’s
best interests.
Neither parents asks us to apply a permissive exception in section
232.116(3) to preclude termination. So we do not consider these exceptions.
Finally, we address the parents’ request for additional time to work toward
reunification. The court may defer termination for a period of six months if it is able
to “enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes
which comprise the basis for the 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.” Id. § 232.104(2)(b).
The parents suggest they are on an upward trajectory and should be given
the time to prove themselves. But they have already been given ample time. And
still they do not seem to be making meaningful progress. For example, in between
the second and third days of the termination hearing, the mother asked police to
kill her, she flushed the father’s medication down the toilet, the father failed to
attend his mental-health appointments and failed to take his medication. These
are signs of decline or, at best, stagnation. They are not signs of improvement. 8
Moreover, the parents identify no concrete changes we could reasonably
anticipate coming to fruition within six months. So we will not force the children to
wait in limbo any longer. See In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010) (“We
do not ‘gamble with the children’s future’ by asking them to continuously wait for a
stable biological parent, particularly at such tender ages.” (citation omitted)). We
decline to grant additional time to either parent.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.