In the Interest of A.T. and A.T., Minor Children ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-0411
Filed June 5, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF A.T. and A.T.,
Minor Children,
J.T., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Patricia J. Meier of Nidey Erdahl Fisher Pilkington & Meier, PLC, Cedar
Rapids, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Zachary P. Crowdes, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for
minor children.
Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
A father appeals the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights. He
claims clear and convincing evidence shows termination would be detrimental to
the children due to the closeness of the parent-child bonds. We find termination
of the father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. We affirm.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
J.T., father, and J.K., mother, are the parents of two children, A.T. and
A.D.T., born in 2015 and 2016. The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS)
has been involved with the family since the birth of A.T. due to the child testing
positive for marijuana at birth, substance abuse by both parents, the father’s
probation violations, and domestic violence between the parents.
On February 4, 2016, a petition to declare A.T. a child in need of assistance
(CINA) was filed due to concerns of domestic violence in the child’s presence,
marijuana use in the home, and supervision concerns. A.T. was adjudicated CINA
on March 29, but remained in her mother’s care after the mother assured DHS she
was not using drugs anymore. DHS agreed to visitation for the father. The mother
tested positive for marijuana. A.T. was removed from the home on June 16 after
the mother’s drug test came back positive and the father failed to appear for a
probation appointment. Testing on the child’s hair came back positive for ingestion
and exposure to marijuana. In September, the father was arrested for felony
possession of a controlled substance.1 The father participated in substance-abuse
treatment while incarcerated.
1
The father had also been arrested for possession of a controlled substance in December
2015, after the older child’s birth.
3
A.D.T. was born in late 2016 and tested negative for controlled substances.
The father was in jail at the time of A.D.T.’s birth. A CINA petition was filed for the
younger child on January 3, 2017, due to the parents’ lack of compliance on the
older child’s case. The lack of compliance included the father’s arrest for probation
violations on multiple drug charges. At a January 24 permanency hearing for the
older child, the court granted additional time to work toward reunification. The
younger child was adjudicated CINA on February 6, but remained in the mother’s
care. The older child was returned to the parents’ care on June 27, as the mother
was addressing her mental-health and substance-abuse issues. The father had
been released from jail and was sharing care of the children with the mother.
In September 2017, the mother and father were living together with the
children at the home of the paternal grandmother. The parents only occasionally
complied with required weekly drug testing. When he complied with testing for his
probation, the father’s tests often came back positive for marijuana. The parents
did not make themselves available for all the weekly face-to-face contacts with
service providers as required.
Following a January 2018 request to close the case, the court ordered hair
tests on the children and set a hearing. Both children’s tests came back positive
for ingestion of marijuana. In February, DHS also discovered the father had not
been compliant with his probation and had not been attending his mental-health
appointments. He admitted to daily marijuana use since October 2017.
On March 5, 2018, DHS received test results for the parents; both tested
positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. The children also tested positive
for methamphetamine and marijuana. The children were removed from the home
4
and placed in foster care. The parents were evicted from their home at the end of
March, and the father was arrested.
The father has used marijuana since he was fourteen years old. He used
methamphetamine occasionally. He has a history of obtaining substance-abuse
and mental-health evaluations and treatment, then failing to follow through with the
recommendations when in the community.
The father has been arrested and incarcerated multiple times throughout
the children’s young lives. He has been on probation since 2014. The father was
in jail from the end of March 2018 through the termination hearing at the end of
December. While in jail, he had consistent visitation with the children. The father
was sober through his incarceration. He attended mental-health treatment
regularly through the jail. However, he repeatedly goes back to drugs or alcohol
when in the community and stops attending mental-health treatment. When
released to participate in drug court in December, two weeks prior to the
termination hearing, he violated his probation the day after his release by drinking
alcohol and was placed back in jail. He testified he drank the alcohol to “take the
edge off.”
The termination hearing was held on December 28, 2018. The court heard
testimony from the mother, the father, the DHS worker, the father’s therapist, and
the family services worker supervising his visits. At trial, the father requested
additional time for him to be released and get set up to take care of the children.
5
On February 27, 2019, the court terminated the father’s parental rights
pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f), (h), and (l) (2018).2
II. Standard of Review
We review termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo. In re A.B., 815
N.W.2d 764, 773 (Iowa 2012). “There must be clear and convincing evidence of
the grounds for termination of parental rights.” In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219
(Iowa 2016). Clear and convincing evidence means there are “no serious or
substantial doubts as to the correctness of conclusions of law drawn from the
evidence.” In re L.H., 904 N.W.2d 145, 149 (Iowa 2017) (citation omitted). The
paramount concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the children.
In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006).
III. Analysis
The juvenile court terminated the father’s rights to A.T. under section
232.116(1)(f) and (l), and to A.D.T. under paragraphs (h) and (l). We note A.T.
was not yet four years old at the time of the termination hearing, and therefore the
State’s petition and the juvenile court erred in using paragraph (f) instead of (h).
However, on appeal the father concedes the statutory requirements for termination
have been met and only contests whether termination of his parental rights is in
the best interests of the children. He testified he would be ready for the children
to return to his care in three to six months.
The court found the father was not available to parent the children due to
his incarceration and expressed concern for the father’s ability to maintain sobriety
2
The court also terminated the mother’s parental rights. She does not appeal.
6
and attend to his mental health while in the community. In particular, the court was
concerned the father would not comply with the rules of probation when his
December release resulted in a violation the next day. The court found the foster
and potential adoptive placement offered the best placement for the long-term
nurturing and growth of the children.
A parent’s rights need not be terminated if “[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.” Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c).
In deciding what is in the child’s best interests, we follow the
framework established in section 232.116(2), giving “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.”
In re B.T., 894 N.W.2d 29, 33 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). “It is well-settled law that we
cannot deprive a child of permanency after the State has proved a ground for
termination under section 232.116(1) by hoping someday a parent will learn to be
a parent and be able to provide a stable home for the child.” In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d
100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (citation omitted). A parent’s past performance “may be
indicative of the quality of future care the parent is capable of providing.” J.E., 723
N.W.2d at 798 (citation omitted).
The record shows the father was arrested for two separate offenses and
sustained multiple probation violations during the course of his young children’s
lives. He missed the birth of the younger child due to being in jail. He has been
through substance-abuse treatment while incarcerated and relapsed after release.
He has spent more than half of the younger child’s life in jail. While he seemed to
be making progress on his mental-health and was sober for an extended period
7
during his last incarceration, upon release to enter drug court he almost
immediately violated his probation and conditions of his housing by drinking
alcohol.
The children have been with a foster family since the beginning of March
2018. That family wants to adopt the children. This is the second foster placement
for the older child, who was removed for a year as an infant, then was placed with
the parents for nine months before the second removal. While everyone agrees
the children have a good bond with the father, the father parents well under
supervision, and they clearly love each other, the children are also bonded to the
foster family. The father had over three years to demonstrate his ability to care for
the children, but has been unable to maintain sobriety outside of jail. Through his
actions, he has not shown he would be in a place to care for the children within
another six months. Based on the record before us, we find it is in the children’s
best interests to terminate the father’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.