In the Interest of L.N., Minor Child ( 2020 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-0056
Filed April 1, 2020
IN THE INTEREST OF L.N.,
Minor Child,
I.N., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Eric J.
Nelson, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to one child.
AFFIRMED.
Patricia Scheinost, Council Bluffs, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Marti Nerenstone, Council Bluffs, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
child.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Blane, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2020).
2
BLANE, Senior Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to a one-year-old
daughter. The juvenile court found he failed to maintain significant and meaningful
contact. We review child-welfare cases de novo. In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212,
219 (Iowa 2016). The juvenile court’s fact findings do not bind us, but we give
them weight, particularly on credibility issues. Id. Our top concern is L.N.’s best
interests. See In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521, 529 (Iowa 2019).
L.N. came to the attention of the department of human services (DHS) at
birth because her mother tested positive for illegal drugs. L.N. also tested positive
at birth through urine and meconium testing for several illegal drugs. She was
removed from the mother’s care and placed with a foster parent who has been her
sole caregiver ever since. At the time of her birth, the mother was married to
someone other than L.N.’s biological father. The juvenile court eventually
terminated the mother and the legal father’s parental rights to L.N., but they do not
appeal.1 The mother identified the father, the appellant here, as a possible
biological father, and paternity testing established the appellant as L.N.’s father2 in
October 2018.
In October 2019, seeing insufficient progress in case goals for the mother,
father, and legal father, the State filed for termination of parental rights. It alleged
termination of the father’s relationship was appropriate under the statutory factors
1 We note that the juvenile court ordered the termination of the legal father’s
parental rights. However, under In re J.C., 857 N.W.2d 495 (Iowa 2014), once a
biological father was determined, the legal father should have been dismissed as
he was no longer a necessary party.
2 We will refer to the biological father as the “father.”
3
set out in Iowa Code section 232.116(1), paragraphs (e), (f), and (l) (2019). But,
because L.N. is not yet “four years of age or older,” paragraph (f) does not apply.
The court also found the evidence was insufficient to support termination under
paragraph (l). It found the State proved the ground for termination under
paragraph (e). The father appeals.
Significant and Meaningful Contact. The juvenile court may terminate
parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) if
e. The court finds that all of the following have occurred:
(1) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of
assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
(2) The child has been removed from the physical custody of
the child’s parents for a period of at least six consecutive months.
(3) There is clear and convincing evidence that the parents
have not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child
during the previous six consecutive months and have made no
reasonable efforts to resume care of the child despite being given
the opportunity to do so.
Proof of paragraphs (1) and (2) is not contested. Significant and meaningful
contact “includes but is not limited to the affirmative assumption by the parents of
the duties encompassed by the role of being a parent.” Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)(e)(3). In addition to financial obligations of parenthood, this duty
“requires continued interest in the child, a genuine effort to complete the
responsibilities prescribed in the case permanency plan, a genuine effort to
maintain communication with the child, and requires that the parents establish and
maintain a place of importance in the child’s life.” Id. These are efforts we find the
father did not make in this case.
Although paternity was established in October 2018, the father was
incarcerated in Nebraska until February 2019. The father has a long history of
4
abusing illegal substances and committing acts of domestic violence against the
mother. The juvenile court ordered him, upon release, to establish stable housing,
remain free from drug and criminal activity, and establish stable employment.
After his February release, the father lived with his sister, but her home
study was denied, so L.N. could not live with him there. The father never obtained
stable employment and was unable to contribute financially to L.N.’s care during
visitations. He obtained substance-abuse and mental-health evaluations—
admitting to regular marijuana use—but never completed recommended treatment
and never submitted to random drug screens as ordered. He perpetrated another
domestic violence attack against the mother in July 2019. DHS and family safety,
risk, and permanency (FSRP) workers described the father’s engagement with
services as minimal, and he returned to jail in August through September, then
again in October.
The father claims he was overwhelmed by the responsibilities of following
the case plan and trying to reintegrate into life after being released from
incarceration. He also claims he was trying to focus on maintaining stable
employment. While we empathize with the father’s struggles, he was nonetheless
unsuccessful in completing the responsibilities in the case plan and following court
orders.
He was not much more successful in his efforts to establish a relationship
with L.N. He first met her shortly after his February release from jail. But overall,
he attended less than half of his offered visits. All visits were fully supervised and
never progressed to semi or unsupervised. When he was incarcerated in August,
visits stopped because the jail did not approve them when the FSRP worker
5
inquired. The last time the father saw L.N. was in June. A few weeks before the
termination hearing in October, the father was in jail again on federal drug charges.
He did not contact DHS or FSRP from jail but called the foster mother to check on
L.N. Generally, FSRP observed him to interact appropriately with L.N. during
visits. But his poor record of attendance at visitation and a general lack of contact
with DHS and FSRP show he failed to make genuine efforts to maintain
communication with L.N. and demonstrate continued interest in her over their short
relationship. The record shows he has not established or maintained a place of
importance in L.N.’s life with his sporadic visitation and occasional inquiries to the
foster mother.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude the State showed the record supports
by clear and convincing evidence the statutory ground for termination under
paragraph (e).
Best Interests of the Child. The father next contends it was not in L.N.’s
best interests to terminate his parental rights. He argues he was given very little
time to prove himself a fit parent before termination. We give “primary
consideration 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.” Id. § 232.116(2). One factor we may consider
is “whether the child has become integrated into the foster family to the extent that
the child’s familial identity is with the foster family, and whether the foster family is
able and willing to permanently integrate the child into the foster family.” Id.
§ 232.116(2)(b).
6
The father has not shown his ability to parent L.N. safely to any extent. He
has not established stable housing or employment, demonstrated sobriety,
avoided criminal activity, or established a bond with L.N. We understand the father
has had a limited period of time to demonstrate his parenting, but L.N. has been
out of parental care for almost her entire life, well over one year. Our child welfare
statutes give parents “a limited time frame . . . to demonstrate their ability to be
parents.” In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 800 (Iowa 2006). This is because “[t]he
crucial days of childhood cannot be suspended while parents experiment with
ways to face up to their own problems.” In re D.A., 506 N.W.2d 478, 479 (Iowa Ct.
App. 1993). We cannot deny L.N. permanency because the father has not yet
demonstrated he can parent.
L.N. had a number of medical issues during her first year, but the father has
never attended one of her doctor’s appointments. The foster mother has been
managing her care and treatment, and L.N. is now on track developmentally.
Overall, L.N. appears to be well-integrated into her home with the foster mother,
with whom she shares a bond. The foster mother has provided a safe and stable
home for almost L.N.’s entire life. The foster mother is also willing to adopt L.N.
The record is clear and convincing that L.N.’s best interests are served by
severing her legal relationship with the father and allowing her to achieve
permanency through adoption.
Reasonable Efforts. Finally, the father complains the DHS failed to make
reasonable efforts to reunite him with L.N. Iowa Code section 232.102(9) requires
the DHS “make every reasonable effort to return the child to the child’s home as
quickly as possible consistent with the best interests of the child.” Parents whose
7
children have been removed from their care have a duty to ask for other services
before the termination hearing. See In re L.M., 904 N.W.2d 835, 839–40 (Iowa
2017). The parent must identify and demand additional services if they feel DHS’s
efforts have been inadequate. In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct. App.
1994). A parent who fails to do so waives the issue and cannot raise it at the
termination hearing or on appeal. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Iowa Ct.
App. 1999).
In each of its orders during the child-in-need-of-assistance case, the
juvenile court determined the DHS had made reasonable efforts for the parents
with no challenge from the father. The father tried to raise a reasonable-efforts
argument at the termination hearing but was unable to do so as he had not
challenged any effort before. Again, he may not do so on appeal.
In addition, the father’s petition on appeal does not identify any service he
felt was inadequate or any additional service DHS could have provided that would
have improved his position. We deem the issue waived. But we also note that
DHS and FSRP described the father’s engagement with services as minimal,
despite their continued attempts to maintain contact. And during each of his
incarcerations, DHS attended to all the items on an incarcerated parent checklist,
including pursuing visitation so long as the facility’s policy would permit it.
Seeing no grounds for reversal, we affirm the termination of the father’s
parental rights.
AFFIRMED.