In the Interest of A.W., H.D., J.D., and L.D., Minor Children ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1925
Filed June 5, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF A.W., H.D., J.D., and L.D.,
Minor Children,
B.D., Mother,
Appellant,
H.D., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Taylor County, Monty Franklin,
District Associate Judge.
A mother of four children and the father of the youngest three children
separately appeal orders terminating their parental rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH
APPEALS.
Kevin Hobbs, West Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Shane P. O’Toole, Des Moines, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Andrew J. Zimmerman of Nielsen & Zimmerman, PLC, Corning, attorney
and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Tabor, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Judge.
A mother of four children, born in 2008, 2011, 2012, and 2013, and the
father of the youngest three children, separately appeal orders terminating their
parental rights. The mother contends the State failed to prove the grounds for
termination cited by the district court. In that context, she argues the department
of human services did not make reasonable efforts to reunite her with the children
and the children were bonded to her. The father contends termination is not in the
children’s best interests. Under that rubric, he challenges the efforts made by the
department to reunify him with the children and argues he worked to maintain a
strong bond with them.
I. Mother
The district court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(e), (f), and (l) (2018). We may affirm if we find clear and
convincing evidence to support any of the grounds for termination. In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010). On our de novo review, we focus on subsection (f),
which requires proof of several elements, including proof the children could not be
returned to the parent’s custody.
The department became involved with the family in 2016 following
allegations of domestic violence and methamphetamine use within the household.
The State filed a petition to have the children adjudicated in need of assistance.
The district court granted the petition and allowed the children to remain with the
mother, under the department’s supervision.
The mother tested positive for methamphetamine while the children were in
her care. In 2017, all four children were removed from the mother’s custody and
3
were placed with the father of the oldest child, where they remained through the
termination hearing seventeen months later.
According to the department social worker assigned to the case, the mother
did not consistently engage in reunification services. For example, from December
12, 2016 through June 12, 2018, the department “requested 35 random drug
screens” and the mother only “completed 11.” Of those eleven, nine “were positive
for methamphetamine.” Similarly, the mother was afforded four supervised visits
with her children each month but only attended “one or two.” The social worker
characterized her bond with the children as “strained.” She testified that
reunification services were “exhausted.”
We recognize the mother moved to another part of the State approximately
five months before the termination hearing and the full panoply of services
previously afforded by the department did not follow her. But the mother’s
participation was sporadic even before the move. The social worker opined that,
as of the termination hearing in August 2018, the mother was in no better position
to safely parent her children than she was when the case opened in 2016.
We agree with the district court that the children could not be returned to
the mother’s custody. We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f).
II. Father
The district court terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(e), (f), and (l). Although the father claims in passing that
the State did not prove he had a severe substance-abuse disorder as required by
subsection (l), he does not formally challenge the evidence supporting the grounds
4
for termination. To the extent his appeal can be read as a challenge to the grounds
for termination, we focus on section 232.116(1)(f).
Before the department filed a child-in-need-of-assistance petition, the father
of the youngest three children was arrested and charged with third-degree sexual
abuse of an unrelated child. He was ultimately convicted of the charge and
transitioned from jail to prison. At the time of the termination hearing, he remained
in prison. He testified to a discharge date of April 2, 2021 and admitted the soonest
he could be paroled was a year and a half after the termination hearing.
Accordingly, he was in no position to have the children returned to his custody and
section 232.116(1)(f) is satisfied.
We turn to the father’s argument that termination is not in the children’s best
interests See Iowa Code § 232.116(2). “[T]he interests of the child take
precedence over family reunification.” In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521, 529 (Iowa
2019). “[T]he child’s health and safety are paramount and conditions precedent to
these [reunification] efforts.” Id.The father admitted to using methamphetamine while caring for the
children. He further admitted the last time he saw his children was on September
6, 2016, and his only communication with them after that point was by letter.
Although he testified to requesting visits during the child-in-need-of-assistance
proceeding, the department social worker stated the jail did not permit visits and
the prison disallowed any contact beyond correspondence pending completion of
a sex-offender-treatment program. At the time of the termination hearing, the
father remained on a waiting list for the program. We conclude the father was not
in a position to ensure the safety of his children in the imminent or long-term future.
5
The father also argues his parental rights should not have been terminated
based on the bond he shared with the children. The argument implicates the
exception to termination set forth in section 232.116(3)(c).
Although the department social worker testified the children once shared a
close bond with their father and the record reflects they were excited to receive his
correspondence, the fact remained that he had no personal interaction with them
for almost two years and the prospect of reengaging with them in the near term
was slim. We conclude the district court appropriately refused to grant an
exception to termination based on the closeness of the parent-child relationship.
We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights to his three children.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.