IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-0168 Filed April 1, 2020
IN THE INTEREST OF S.E., Minor Child,
D.E., Mother, Appellant,
J.E., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld,
District Associate Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental
rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
John J. Bishop, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Robin L. Miller, Cedar Rapids, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Julie F. Trachta of Linn County Advocate, Inc., Cedar Rapids, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ. 2
TABOR, Presiding Judge.
Mental-health needs, substance abuse, and domestic violence often
prevent parents from reunifying with their children in cases of abuse or neglect.
S.E.’s parents, Dina and Jerrod, faced all three of those major obstacles to
resuming care of their now two-year-old son. The juvenile court terminated the
parental rights of both Dina and Jerrod under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h)
(2019). Both parents challenge the State’s proof they cannot resume custody of
S.E. without the risk of further harm. They also argue termination was not in their
son’s best interests. After our independent review of the record, we draw the same
conclusions from the evidence as did the juvenile court.1 Despite recent progress,
the parents have not shown the ability to maintain “a safe, sober, violence-free
home for their child.” We thus affirm the juvenile court’s termination decision.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
S.E. was born in August 2017. The next month, the Iowa Department of
Human Services (DHS) completed a family assessment identifying domestic
abuse by Jerrod against Dina. S.E. remained in the care of his parents for the next
year. But in the fall of 2018, the DHS determined the parents were using
methamphetamine while caring for S.E. The juvenile court adjudicated S.E. as a
1 We review rulings terminating parental rights de novo. In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219 (Iowa 2016). While not bound by the juvenile court’s fact findings, we give them weight, particularly on credibility claims. Id. The State must present clear and convincing evidence to support termination. In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110–11 (Iowa 2014). Evidence satisfies that standard if no serious or significant doubts exist about the correctness of conclusions of law drawn from the proof. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). 3
child in need of assistance (CINA) and removed him from parental care in October
2018.
At first, the DHS placed S.E. with his maternal grandmother. Because the
grandmother struggled to limit Dina’s access to S.E., the DHS soon moved the
child to the home of his paternal grandfather. S.E. remained in his grandfather’s
care through much of the CINA case.2 The grandfather has qualified as a foster
parent and is willing to adopt S.E.
As the juvenile court noted, both parents have “significant mental health
needs” that affect their ability to parent. Dina was diagnosed with attention deficit
disorder, anxiety with panic attacks, depression, mood disorder, and obsessive
compulsive disorder. The DHS worker believed Dina depended emotionally on
Jerrod. Jerrod was diagnosed with mood disorder, schizophrenia, depression, and
anxiety. Both parents sought medication management from the Abbe Mental
Health Center but neither attended individual counseling.
Jerrod’s behavior was especially concerning. He directed “angry outbursts”
at the DHS workers and even threatened to kill the DHS case manager. The FSRP
(family safety, risk, and permanency) providers stopped transporting him to
interactions with S.E. in the summer of 2019 because they did not feel safe. An
FSRP worker described his demeanor as “very unpredictable.”
Closely related to their mental-health challenges, substance-abuse issues
hindered their ability to safely parent. Jerrod had long-term addictions to alcohol
and methamphetamine. He said, as a teenager, he “would drink from sunrise to
2 S.E. lived with a paternal aunt from December 2018 through April 2019. 4
sundown.” He sought treatment several times but continued to drink to intoxication
during the CINA case. Both he and Dina downplayed his current alcohol
consumption in their testimony at the termination hearing. Dina’s own
methamphetamine use coincided with her relationship with Jerrod. She also lied
to substance-abuse evaluators about the extent of her use during the CINA case.
The district court was concerned they had simply substituted their addiction to
methamphetamine to an addiction to alcohol.
The record showed that in late September 2019, both Dina and Jerrod
“drank liquor” and “got intoxicated pretty quickly.” Jerrod ended up calling 911 to
say Dina assaulted him. He described the call as “a petty tactic to get her in
trouble.” A similar incident occurred earlier that month.
To complete their trifecta of troubles, domestic violence plagued the
relationship between Jerrod and Dina. Jerrod was most often the aggressor,
according to the record. Jerrod denied this history in his testimony. And Dina
minimized the frequency of the violence, which also coincides with their drinking
to excess. When confronted with the police report, Dina acknowledged Jerrod
punched her while she was holding S.E. in February 2018. Social workers referred
Dina to Waypoint, a nonprofit program offering domestic-violence victim
counseling. But she did not follow through with that service. The parents’
relationship has been “on-again, off-again” but Dina testified she was committed
to their marriage. The parents had separate visits with S.E. until September 2019
when they reconciled their relationship.
The parents didn’t have their own housing until September 2019. At that
point, they pooled their monthly resources (hers from Social Security disability and 5
his from the East Central Region Mental Health and Disability Services) to rent a
two-bedroom house. The location was suitable for visits with S.E. The DHS
allowed the parents three, six-hour unsupervised visits with drop-ins. By all
accounts, the interactions were positive and the parents met their child’s needs.
In late November 2019, the DHS offered the parents a fourth visit that would
require them to schedule and transport S.E. to his speech therapy appointments.
By the time of the termination proceedings in early to mid-December, they had not
followed through with those appointments.
The juvenile court drafted a thorough history of the case and concisely
explained its reasons for granting the State’s petition for termination of parental
rights. The parents filed separate petitions on appeal.
II. Analysis
We examine termination cases in three steps. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-0168 Filed April 1, 2020
IN THE INTEREST OF S.E., Minor Child,
D.E., Mother, Appellant,
J.E., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld,
District Associate Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental
rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
John J. Bishop, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Robin L. Miller, Cedar Rapids, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Julie F. Trachta of Linn County Advocate, Inc., Cedar Rapids, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ. 2
TABOR, Presiding Judge.
Mental-health needs, substance abuse, and domestic violence often
prevent parents from reunifying with their children in cases of abuse or neglect.
S.E.’s parents, Dina and Jerrod, faced all three of those major obstacles to
resuming care of their now two-year-old son. The juvenile court terminated the
parental rights of both Dina and Jerrod under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h)
(2019). Both parents challenge the State’s proof they cannot resume custody of
S.E. without the risk of further harm. They also argue termination was not in their
son’s best interests. After our independent review of the record, we draw the same
conclusions from the evidence as did the juvenile court.1 Despite recent progress,
the parents have not shown the ability to maintain “a safe, sober, violence-free
home for their child.” We thus affirm the juvenile court’s termination decision.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
S.E. was born in August 2017. The next month, the Iowa Department of
Human Services (DHS) completed a family assessment identifying domestic
abuse by Jerrod against Dina. S.E. remained in the care of his parents for the next
year. But in the fall of 2018, the DHS determined the parents were using
methamphetamine while caring for S.E. The juvenile court adjudicated S.E. as a
1 We review rulings terminating parental rights de novo. In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219 (Iowa 2016). While not bound by the juvenile court’s fact findings, we give them weight, particularly on credibility claims. Id. The State must present clear and convincing evidence to support termination. In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110–11 (Iowa 2014). Evidence satisfies that standard if no serious or significant doubts exist about the correctness of conclusions of law drawn from the proof. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). 3
child in need of assistance (CINA) and removed him from parental care in October
2018.
At first, the DHS placed S.E. with his maternal grandmother. Because the
grandmother struggled to limit Dina’s access to S.E., the DHS soon moved the
child to the home of his paternal grandfather. S.E. remained in his grandfather’s
care through much of the CINA case.2 The grandfather has qualified as a foster
parent and is willing to adopt S.E.
As the juvenile court noted, both parents have “significant mental health
needs” that affect their ability to parent. Dina was diagnosed with attention deficit
disorder, anxiety with panic attacks, depression, mood disorder, and obsessive
compulsive disorder. The DHS worker believed Dina depended emotionally on
Jerrod. Jerrod was diagnosed with mood disorder, schizophrenia, depression, and
anxiety. Both parents sought medication management from the Abbe Mental
Health Center but neither attended individual counseling.
Jerrod’s behavior was especially concerning. He directed “angry outbursts”
at the DHS workers and even threatened to kill the DHS case manager. The FSRP
(family safety, risk, and permanency) providers stopped transporting him to
interactions with S.E. in the summer of 2019 because they did not feel safe. An
FSRP worker described his demeanor as “very unpredictable.”
Closely related to their mental-health challenges, substance-abuse issues
hindered their ability to safely parent. Jerrod had long-term addictions to alcohol
and methamphetamine. He said, as a teenager, he “would drink from sunrise to
2 S.E. lived with a paternal aunt from December 2018 through April 2019. 4
sundown.” He sought treatment several times but continued to drink to intoxication
during the CINA case. Both he and Dina downplayed his current alcohol
consumption in their testimony at the termination hearing. Dina’s own
methamphetamine use coincided with her relationship with Jerrod. She also lied
to substance-abuse evaluators about the extent of her use during the CINA case.
The district court was concerned they had simply substituted their addiction to
methamphetamine to an addiction to alcohol.
The record showed that in late September 2019, both Dina and Jerrod
“drank liquor” and “got intoxicated pretty quickly.” Jerrod ended up calling 911 to
say Dina assaulted him. He described the call as “a petty tactic to get her in
trouble.” A similar incident occurred earlier that month.
To complete their trifecta of troubles, domestic violence plagued the
relationship between Jerrod and Dina. Jerrod was most often the aggressor,
according to the record. Jerrod denied this history in his testimony. And Dina
minimized the frequency of the violence, which also coincides with their drinking
to excess. When confronted with the police report, Dina acknowledged Jerrod
punched her while she was holding S.E. in February 2018. Social workers referred
Dina to Waypoint, a nonprofit program offering domestic-violence victim
counseling. But she did not follow through with that service. The parents’
relationship has been “on-again, off-again” but Dina testified she was committed
to their marriage. The parents had separate visits with S.E. until September 2019
when they reconciled their relationship.
The parents didn’t have their own housing until September 2019. At that
point, they pooled their monthly resources (hers from Social Security disability and 5
his from the East Central Region Mental Health and Disability Services) to rent a
two-bedroom house. The location was suitable for visits with S.E. The DHS
allowed the parents three, six-hour unsupervised visits with drop-ins. By all
accounts, the interactions were positive and the parents met their child’s needs.
In late November 2019, the DHS offered the parents a fourth visit that would
require them to schedule and transport S.E. to his speech therapy appointments.
By the time of the termination proceedings in early to mid-December, they had not
followed through with those appointments.
The juvenile court drafted a thorough history of the case and concisely
explained its reasons for granting the State’s petition for termination of parental
rights. The parents filed separate petitions on appeal.
II. Analysis
We examine termination cases in three steps. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33,
40 (Iowa 2010). First, we decide whether the State proved a ground for termination
in section 232.116(1). Id. After finding that proof by clear and convincing evidence,
we consider whether termination is in the best interests of the child by applying the
factors in section 232.116(2). Id. If the best-interests test is met, we turn to the
permissive factors listed in section 232.116(3) to see if any stand in the way of
terminating. Id.
A. Statutory Basis for Termination
Both Dina and Jerrod contend the State failed to offer clear and convincing
evidence to support termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h).3 They
3 Paragraph (h) allows for termination if: The court finds that all the following have occurred: 6
focus on the fourth element—proof that S.E. could not be returned to their care at
the time of the termination hearing. See M.W., 876 N.W.2d at 223–24.
Contrary to the parents’ position, the State offered strong evidence neither
is ready to resume the role of full-time parent. The record shows after a year of
services, the parents still could not care for S.E. without ongoing DHS involvement.
See A.M., 843 N.W.2d at 111. Despite their progress in securing long
unsupervised visits, S.E. had never stayed overnight with them or had a trial home
stay. The service providers were on the cusp of recommending the next step,
when the September 2019 police calls renewed their fear of maltreatment based
on substance abuse and domestic violence.
Significantly, none of the professionals involved with the case felt
comfortable recommending reunification. See id. (noting DHS caseworker, all
service providers, and guardian ad litem (GAL) recommended termination); In re
D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010) (same). Those professionals expressed
concern the parents had not adequately addressed their violent history—or the
effect of substance use and mental-health challenges on their ability to raise S.E.
One of the FSRP workers opined the parents had not seized the opportunity during
(1) The child is three years of age or younger. (2) The child has been adjudicated [CINA under] 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. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h). 7
the open CINA case to address their unresolved mental-health issues, noting “the
ball hasn’t been rolling the whole time.” The GAL acknowledged the parents made
“some positive steps” in the last thirty days, but did not see the kind of “long-term
change” necessary to avoid placing S.E. at risk. Giving due respect to their expert
views, we find clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination
for both parents under section 232.116(1)(h).
B. Best Interests/Permissive Factors
Both Dina and Jerrod argue termination is not in S.E.’s best interests. But
neither of them actually discuss the factors in section 232.116(2). Instead, they
conflate the best-interests argument with the permissive factor weighing against
termination in section 232.116(3)(c) (allowing juvenile court to deny petition when
“[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that the termination would be detrimental
to the child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship”).
Both parents argue their relationship with S.E. is so close that termination
would damage his well-being. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). Indeed, the record
shows a loving connection between S.E. and his parents. The FSRP worker
described the child as “well-bonded” and “happy to see his parents” during their
interactions. The juvenile court also “acknowledge[d] that there is an existing
bond.” But that said, we must decide whether the disadvantage of termination
overcomes the parents’ continuing inability to provide S.E. with a safe, stable, and
substance-free environment. See D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 709.
The burden is on the parents resisting termination to prove the permissive
factors under section 232.116(3). In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 476–77 (Iowa
2018). Like the juvenile court, we find the parents fail to meet that burden. S.E. 8
shows signs of trauma from the removal and continuing upheaval in his life. His
grandfather has sought play therapy for S.E because the two-year-old is often
unable to regulate his emotions—thrashing his head and crying uncontrollably.
The parents have not shown a similar commitment to securing therapy for S.E.
Despite their loving intentions, the parents have not made enough progress to
delay permanency for S.E. Section 232.116(3)(c) did not compel a different
outcome under these circumstances.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.