IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1112 Filed September 13, 2017
IN THE INTERST OF D.W., D.W., and D.W., Minor Children,
D.W., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, DeDra L.
Schroeder, Judge.
A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Michael J. Moeller of Sorensen Law Office, Clear Lake, for appellant
father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Crystal L. Ely, of North Iowa Youth Law Center, Mason City, for minor
children.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ. 2
BOWER, Judge.
A father appeals the juvenile court decision terminating his parental rights
to three children.1 We find the State offered the father reasonable efforts, there
was sufficient evidence to terminate the father’s rights, no exception to
termination applies, and termination is in the best interests of the children. We
affirm the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) first became involved
with the father in 2013 after a number of child abuse assessments. In 2015,
DHS was notified the father was using methamphetamine while caring for the
children. The two older children were adjudicated children in need of assistance
(CINA), though they remained in the father’s care. Substance-abuse counseling,
drug testing, mental-health treatment, and protective child care were all
recommended by DHS. In April 2016, the father contacted DHS and informed
the department he and the mother had relapsed and were using illegal drugs.
The younger child was then adjudicated CINA and all three children were
removed from the father’s care.
The father did not consistently attend visitation even when the visitation
was conducted in his home. Visitation was moved from the father’s home to
another city. The father filed a motion for lack of reasonable efforts, requesting
increased visitation and assistance with transportation to the visits. The district
court found DHS made reasonable efforts.
1 The mother of the children does not appeal. 3
During the case the father continued to struggle with substance, alcohol,
and domestic-abuse issues. During one incident the father lit the mother’s
clothes on fire along with some of the children’s belongings, for which he was
jailed. The father failed to complete substance-abuse treatment, has not
consistently passed or taken drug tests, and has even shaved his body hair in an
attempt to thwart further testing.
The father’s parental rights were terminated on June 27, 2017. He now
appeals.
II. Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). Clear and convincing evidence is needed to
establish the grounds for termination. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa
2006). Where there is clear and convincing evidence, there is no serious or
substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusion drawn from the
evidence. In re D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359, 361 (Iowa 2002). The paramount
concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the child. In re L.L.,
459 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 1990).
III. Reasonable Efforts
The father claims the State did not make reasonable efforts to return the
children to his care. Specifically, he claims DHS was not making reasonable
efforts as they should have increased visitation and provided assistance in
transportation to the visits. The juvenile court found DHS made reasonable
efforts in relation to transportation and visitation. The father failed to attend many
visits even when the visits were in his own home. During the case, the father 4
made progress and DHS considered moving visits back into the family home.
The father objected, stating his cousin and brother were living in the home and
so visitation should continue to be held at another location. The father also
previously stated his father would be able to provide transportation to the visits,
and as a result DHS provided gas cards to facilitate the arrangement. When the
father continued to have issues arranging transportation, he requested DHS
workers transport him to and from the visitation. However, the father’s past
erratic and violent behavior raised concerns about the workers’ safety and DHS
refused. We agree with the district court’s finding DHS provided reasonable
efforts.
IV. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The father claims there is not sufficient evidence in the record to support
termination of his parental rights. The father’s rights were terminated pursuant to
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e)-(h) (2017). Where the juvenile court has
terminated a parent’s rights on multiple grounds, “we need only find termination
appropriate under one of these sections to affirm.” In re J.B.L., 844 N.W.2d 703,
704 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014).
We find the father’s rights were properly terminated under section
232.116(1)(f) and (h). In order to terminate under section 232.116(1)(f), (1) the
child must be four years old or older, (2) the child must have been adjudicated in
need of assistance, (3) the child must have been removed from the physical
custody of the parent for twelve of the last eighteen months, and (4) the child
cannot be returned at the time of termination. Section 232.116(1)(h) differs only 5
in respect to the age of the child and the duration of removal required, elements
the father does not contest.
The juvenile court noted “The [father continues] with a cycle of peaks and
valleys with progress with issues of substance abuse, alcohol and
methamphetamine, domestic violence, criminal behavior, incarceration, violation
of no contact between the parents, . . . employment, mental health treatment,
consistency with visitations and meeting with providers, and healthy boundaries.”
The father has been unable to remain sober and has admitted methamphetamine
use on multiple occasions. The father was incarcerated during the case after
lighting the mother’s clothes and some of the children’s belongings on fire. The
father’s violent and erratic behavior was a great enough concern DHS felt it
unsafe to allow the case worker to transport the father to visitation. The father is
employed but the work is seasonal.
We agree with the juvenile court’s assessment. The children are unable
to be returned to the father’s care. The father is still incapable of caring for the
children and meeting their basic needs.
V. Additional Time
The father also claims he should have been given additional time to work
toward reunification. Our supreme court has held we must grant a “full measure
of patience with troubled parents who attempt to remedy a lack of parenting
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1112 Filed September 13, 2017
IN THE INTERST OF D.W., D.W., and D.W., Minor Children,
D.W., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, DeDra L.
Schroeder, Judge.
A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Michael J. Moeller of Sorensen Law Office, Clear Lake, for appellant
father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Crystal L. Ely, of North Iowa Youth Law Center, Mason City, for minor
children.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ. 2
BOWER, Judge.
A father appeals the juvenile court decision terminating his parental rights
to three children.1 We find the State offered the father reasonable efforts, there
was sufficient evidence to terminate the father’s rights, no exception to
termination applies, and termination is in the best interests of the children. We
affirm the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) first became involved
with the father in 2013 after a number of child abuse assessments. In 2015,
DHS was notified the father was using methamphetamine while caring for the
children. The two older children were adjudicated children in need of assistance
(CINA), though they remained in the father’s care. Substance-abuse counseling,
drug testing, mental-health treatment, and protective child care were all
recommended by DHS. In April 2016, the father contacted DHS and informed
the department he and the mother had relapsed and were using illegal drugs.
The younger child was then adjudicated CINA and all three children were
removed from the father’s care.
The father did not consistently attend visitation even when the visitation
was conducted in his home. Visitation was moved from the father’s home to
another city. The father filed a motion for lack of reasonable efforts, requesting
increased visitation and assistance with transportation to the visits. The district
court found DHS made reasonable efforts.
1 The mother of the children does not appeal. 3
During the case the father continued to struggle with substance, alcohol,
and domestic-abuse issues. During one incident the father lit the mother’s
clothes on fire along with some of the children’s belongings, for which he was
jailed. The father failed to complete substance-abuse treatment, has not
consistently passed or taken drug tests, and has even shaved his body hair in an
attempt to thwart further testing.
The father’s parental rights were terminated on June 27, 2017. He now
appeals.
II. Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). Clear and convincing evidence is needed to
establish the grounds for termination. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa
2006). Where there is clear and convincing evidence, there is no serious or
substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusion drawn from the
evidence. In re D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359, 361 (Iowa 2002). The paramount
concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the child. In re L.L.,
459 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 1990).
III. Reasonable Efforts
The father claims the State did not make reasonable efforts to return the
children to his care. Specifically, he claims DHS was not making reasonable
efforts as they should have increased visitation and provided assistance in
transportation to the visits. The juvenile court found DHS made reasonable
efforts in relation to transportation and visitation. The father failed to attend many
visits even when the visits were in his own home. During the case, the father 4
made progress and DHS considered moving visits back into the family home.
The father objected, stating his cousin and brother were living in the home and
so visitation should continue to be held at another location. The father also
previously stated his father would be able to provide transportation to the visits,
and as a result DHS provided gas cards to facilitate the arrangement. When the
father continued to have issues arranging transportation, he requested DHS
workers transport him to and from the visitation. However, the father’s past
erratic and violent behavior raised concerns about the workers’ safety and DHS
refused. We agree with the district court’s finding DHS provided reasonable
efforts.
IV. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The father claims there is not sufficient evidence in the record to support
termination of his parental rights. The father’s rights were terminated pursuant to
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e)-(h) (2017). Where the juvenile court has
terminated a parent’s rights on multiple grounds, “we need only find termination
appropriate under one of these sections to affirm.” In re J.B.L., 844 N.W.2d 703,
704 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014).
We find the father’s rights were properly terminated under section
232.116(1)(f) and (h). In order to terminate under section 232.116(1)(f), (1) the
child must be four years old or older, (2) the child must have been adjudicated in
need of assistance, (3) the child must have been removed from the physical
custody of the parent for twelve of the last eighteen months, and (4) the child
cannot be returned at the time of termination. Section 232.116(1)(h) differs only 5
in respect to the age of the child and the duration of removal required, elements
the father does not contest.
The juvenile court noted “The [father continues] with a cycle of peaks and
valleys with progress with issues of substance abuse, alcohol and
methamphetamine, domestic violence, criminal behavior, incarceration, violation
of no contact between the parents, . . . employment, mental health treatment,
consistency with visitations and meeting with providers, and healthy boundaries.”
The father has been unable to remain sober and has admitted methamphetamine
use on multiple occasions. The father was incarcerated during the case after
lighting the mother’s clothes and some of the children’s belongings on fire. The
father’s violent and erratic behavior was a great enough concern DHS felt it
unsafe to allow the case worker to transport the father to visitation. The father is
employed but the work is seasonal.
We agree with the juvenile court’s assessment. The children are unable
to be returned to the father’s care. The father is still incapable of caring for the
children and meeting their basic needs.
V. Additional Time
The father also claims he should have been given additional time to work
toward reunification. Our supreme court has held we must grant a “full measure
of patience with troubled parents who attempt to remedy a lack of parenting
skills.” In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000). However, this patience is
not unlimited, as it can quickly become a hardship for the children involved. In re
R.J., 436 N.W.2d 630, 636 (Iowa 1989). 6
The father claims he has followed through with all the case plan goals and
made great progress through the life of the case. We disagree. The father has
made some progress but failed to complete substance-abuse treatment,
committed domestic abuse during the case, was incarcerated, did not regularly
attended visitation, and avoided drug testing. An additional six months would not
alleviate the litany of concerns still present in this case.
VI. Exceptions
The father claims the termination of his parental rights should have been
precluded by the strength of his emotional bond with the children. The juvenile
court may decide not to terminate parental rights if any exception set out in Iowa
Code section 232.116(3) is shown. “The court has discretion, based on the
unique circumstances of each case and the best interests of the child, whether to
apply the factors in this section to save the parent-child relationship.” In re D.S.,
806 N.W.2d 458, 475 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011).
The father’s failure to address his substance-abuse issues, his repeated
violation of no-contact orders with the mother, absence during visitation, and
incarceration show he continues to value his own selfish desires over the
wellbeing of his children. While termination may cause some emotional distress
to the children, increased stability and proper care undoubtedly outweigh any
negative effects.
VII. Best Interests
The father finally claims termination is not in the children’s best interests.
After finding a ground for termination exists we are to “consider the factors under
section 232.116(2). Section 232.116(2) requires us to give primary consideration 7
to the child’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing
and growth of the child, 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) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
We find the best interests of all three children are served by termination.
The father has not shown sufficient progress during the life of the case.
Additionally, the father only sporadically attended visitation, even when the
visitation was held in his own home. He has been arrested and incarcerated. He
violated a no-contact order and set fire to the mother’s clothes. The father has
clearly shown he is incapable of caring for his children and his lack of progress
shows he is unlikely to become capable. The stability the children will receive as
a result of this termination is in their best interests.