In the Interest of M.D., Minor Child ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1659
Filed February 6, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF M.D.,
Minor Child,
D.S., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Virginia Cobb, District
Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.
AFFIRMED.
Jesse A. Macro Jr. of Macro & Kozlowski, LLP, West Des Moines, for
appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anagha L. Dixit, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Kayla Ann J. Stratton of Juvenile Public Defender’s Office, Des Moines,
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Jessica A. Millage, Des Moines, for intervenors.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.
2
DOYLE, Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child. “We
review proceedings terminating parental rights de novo. We are not bound by the
juvenile court’s findings of fact, but we do give them weight, especially in assessing
the credibility of witnesses.” In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018) (citations
omitted).
The child was removed from the mother’s care in February 2017 and
adjudicated to be in need of assistance (CINA) due to the mother’s drug use. The
Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) informed the father, who has a history
of substance abuse, that he needed to complete a substance-abuse evaluation
and follow through with the recommendations. Before doing so, the father was
arrested in April 2017 for a probation violation and incarcerated. He has remained
incarcerated during the pendency of the CINA proceedings.
The State filed a petition to terminate parental rights in February 2018. 1 The
juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(d), (e), and (h) (2018).
The father contends termination was contrary to the child’s best interests.
The best-interests analysis requires us to “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.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). In making this determination, we consider
1
The termination of parental rights petition regarding the child’s mother was dismissed
after the mother died during the course of the proceedings.
3
whether the parent’s ability to provide for the child’s needs is affected by the
parent’s imprisonment for a felony. See id. § 232.116(2)(a).
The father has not seen the child since January 2017. His only contact with
the child since being incarcerated is through cards and letters. The father’s
discharge date is January 2020, and he testified that the earliest he could be
released on parole would be around the end of 2018 or early 2019. The father
was twenty-seven years old at the time of the termination hearing, had begun using
drugs when he was fifteen years old, and was actively using drugs before his most
recent incarceration. Even if the father is released on parole, he would need
additional time to show he could safely parent the child.
Children are not equipped with pause buttons, and denying a child
permanency in favor of a parent is contrary to the child’s best interests. See A.S.,
906 N.W.2d at 474 (noting children must not be deprived permanency on the hope
that someday the parent will be able to provide a stable home). Once the grounds
for termination have been proved, time is of the essence. See In re C.B., 611
N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000) (noting that although the law requires a “full measure
of patience with troubled parents who attempt to remedy a lack of parenting skills,”
this patience has been built into the statutory scheme of chapter 232); In re R.J.,
436 N.W.2d 630, 636 (Iowa 1989) (noting that once the time period for reunification
set by the legislature has expired, “patience on behalf of the parent can quickly
translate into intolerable hardship for the children”); In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609,
614 (Iowa 1987) (“It is unnecessary to take from the children’s future any more
than is demanded by statute. Stated otherwise, plans which extend the twelve-
month period during which parents attempt to become adequate in parenting skills
4
should be viewed with a sense of urgency.”). The child’s best interests require
terminating the father’s parental rights.
The father also contends the DHS failed to consider placing the child in the
care of the child’s paternal grandmother. However, the record shows that the DHS
did not allow visits at the paternal grandmother’s home because it was deemed
unsafe. The record also shows the child has lived in the maternal grandparents’
home since before the February 2017 removal, was placed in the maternal
grandparents’ home at the time of removal, and has remained in that placement
since. The maternal grandparents were considered a long-term placement and
were willing to adopt the child, and the DHS worker recommended the child
continue in that placement.
Because terminating the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best
interests, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.