In the Interest of R.T. and X.T., Minor Children , 919 N.W.2d 768 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 18-0363
    Filed June 6, 2018
    IN THE INTEREST OF R.T. and X.T.,
    Minor Children,
    J.T., Father,
    Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, William S.
    Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.
    A father appeals the order entered by the juvenile court terminating his
    parental rights to his children. AFFIRMED.
    Debra A. George of Griffing and George Law Firm, P.L.C., Centerville, for
    appellant father.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney
    General, for appellee State.
    Julie R. De Vries of De Vries Law Office, P.L.C., Centerville, guardian ad
    litem for minor children.
    Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.
    2
    VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
    A father had two children, born in 2014 and 2015.1 The department of
    human services twice investigated him for child abuse and twice issued founded
    reports naming him as the perpetrator. The first report was based on the father’s
    inattention to the older child’s safety. The second was filed after the younger child
    sustained an arm fracture that “appear[ed] to be non-accidental.” The juvenile
    court ordered the children temporarily removed from the parents’ care. They were
    placed with their maternal grandparents, where they remained throughout the
    proceedings.2 The court later adjudicated the children as children in need of
    assistance and eventually terminated both parents’ parental rights to the children.
    On appeal, the father (1) challenges “the circumstances which caused the
    removal” and “the court’s rationale for continued removal”; (2) challenges the
    ground for termination cited by the juvenile court and contends the department of
    human services failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification; (3) argues
    he should have been granted additional time to facilitate reunification; and (4)
    contends a guardianship, rather than termination of parental rights, was in the best
    interests of the children.3
    I.         Removal
    The father argues, “[T]he circumstances which caused the [children’s]
    removal were not sufficient for removal.” This issue is moot. See Homan v.
    Branstad, 
    864 N.W.2d 321
    , 328 (Iowa 2015) (“A case is moot if it no longer
    1
    A third child is not a subject of this appeal.
    2
    For a period of time, the mother was afforded legal custody so long as she lived with
    her parents.
    3
    The mother’s parental rights were also terminated. She did not file a notice of appeal.
    3
    presents a justiciable controversy because the issues involved are academic or
    nonexistent.” (quoting Iowa Bankers Ass’n v. Iowa Credit Union Dep’t, 
    334 N.W.2d 439
    , 442 (Iowa 1983))); In re A.M.H., 
    516 N.W.2d 867
    , 871 (Iowa 1994) (finding
    parent’s challenge to removal order moot where the court subsequently entered
    adjudicatory and dispositional orders). Accordingly, we decline to consider the
    father’s challenge to the removal order.
    II.    Ground for Termination and Reasonable Efforts
    The district court terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
    Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2017), which requires proof of several elements,
    including proof a child cannot be returned to the parent’s custody. “[A]s part of its
    ultimate proof the child cannot be safely returned to the care of a parent,” “[t]he
    State must show reasonable efforts” were made to reunify parent with child. See
    In re C.B., 
    611 N.W.2d 489
    , 493 (Iowa 2000).
    The father argues the department did not make reasonable efforts toward
    reunification and, as a result, the State failed to prove this ground for termination.
    On our de novo review, we disagree.
    The father tested positive for amphetamines before the inception of this
    action and tested positive a second time after the State filed the child-in-need-of-
    assistance petition. The department afforded him substance-abuse treatment,
    which he attended for almost three months.
    The department facilitated the father’s participation in a “Parents as
    Teachers” program, but the father’s work schedule precluded ongoing attendance.
    The department also facilitated weekly supervised visits with the children.
    The father complains the visits were too short, but he often left before the end of
    4
    the two-hour sessions. He also asserts he lacked transportation to attend visits.
    However, the department arranged for the service providers to travel two hours to
    facilitate visits.
    Initially, the father’s participation in the visits was “sporadic.” Although his
    attendance improved in the two months preceding the termination hearing, his
    supervision skills remained deficient. Despite the service provider’s instruction and
    modeling of appropriate behavior, the father often failed to monitor the children
    and the service provider had to “interven[e] in a lot of situations.”
    The father maintains the department’s parenting training failed to
    accommodate his restrictions arising from a head injury. To the contrary, the
    department social worker in charge of the case testified she was aware of his
    memory problems and “talk[ed] at length with the providers and expressed that
    they needed to either look through their information . . . or go online and print out
    pictures, such as step-by-step [instructions] on how to bathe a child, . . . how to get
    them ready for bed, . . . [and] how to prepare food.”
    The record supports the juvenile court’s finding that the department made
    reasonable efforts to reunify the family. The record also supports the court’s
    determination that the children could not be returned to the father’s custody at the
    time of the termination hearing or in the imminent future.
    III.    Additional Time for Reunification
    The father contends that, in light of his recent progress, commitment to
    sobriety, and the bond he shared with the children, he should have been granted
    an additional six months to work toward reunification.            Iowa Code section
    232.104(2)(b) affords courts this option, but the statute requires the court to
    5
    determine the need for removal will no longer exist at the end of the extension. The
    court was unable to make such a finding. We agree the father’s belated progress
    in certain areas was insufficient to warrant an extension of time, given his lack of
    significant progress in appropriate parental supervision of the children. We affirm
    the juvenile court’s denial of a six-month extension.
    IV.    Guardianship
    The father contends the juvenile court should have ordered a guardianship
    with the maternal grandparents in lieu of terminating his parental rights. “[W]e have
    said time and time again that a guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative
    to termination.” In re B.T., 
    894 N.W.2d 29
    , 32 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017) (citing cases).
    The juvenile court found:
    The children are doing very well in the home of their maternal
    grandparents, are ages 3 and 1 respectively, are in need of a truly
    permanent home, and while they do have some special needs those
    issues are being appropriately addressed and would not in any way
    prevent them from being adopted either by their grandparents or
    some other loving family. So, while the parents are bonded and love
    their children there is no credible evidence to show a termination of
    parental rights would be unduly detrimental to the children.
    We concur in this assessment.
    We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights to these two
    children.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-0363

Citation Numbers: 919 N.W.2d 768

Filed Date: 6/6/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023