In the Interest of Z.L., S.L., C.W., and L.W., Minor Children ( 2020 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-0887
Filed September 23, 2020
IN THE INTEREST OF Z.L., S.L., C.W., and L.W.,
Minor Children,
J.W., Father of C.W. and L.W.,
Appellant,
R.S., Mother,
Appellant,
C.L., Father of Z.L.,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher,
District Associate Judge.
A mother and two fathers separately appeal the termination of their parental
rights. AFFIRMED ON ALL THREE APPEALS.
Bryan Webber of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant father of
C.W. and L.W.
William E. Sales III of Sales Law Firm, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant
mother.
Jami J. Hagemeier of Drake Legal Clinic, Des Moines, for appellant father
of Z.L.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
2
Nicole Garbis Nolan of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, attorney for minor
children C.W. and L.W. and guardian ad litem for all four minor children.
Jessica Chandler of Chandler Law Office, Windsor Heights, attorney for
minor child Z.L.
Joel E. Fenton of Law Offices of Joel E. Fenton, PLC, Des Moines, attorney
for minor child S.L.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.
3
BOWER, Chief Judge.
A mother and two fathers each appeal the termination of their parental
rights. Clear and convincing evidence supports the grounds for termination for all
three parents, termination is in the children’s best interests, and an extension of
time is not warranted. We affirm on all three appeals.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
R.S. is the mother of Z.L, born in 2007; S.L., born in 2008; L.W., born in
2012; and C.W., born in 2015. C.L. is the father of Z.L. Sh.L. is the father of S.L.1
J.W. is the father of C.W. and L.W.
On July 31, 2018, all four children were removed from the mother’s and
J.W.’s custody due to domestic violence against one another in front of the
children. The violence resulted in a founded child abuse assessment. The mother
also tested positive for methamphetamine use.2 At the time of removal, C.L. was
in prison and Sh.L was living out of state.
As a result of the mother’s drug use, the younger children tested positive
for methamphetamine and amphetamine exposure. The two older children were
ultimately placed with a maternal aunt and uncle, and the younger two children
were placed in foster care. On September 4, the children were adjudicated as
children in need of assistance (CINA).
1Sh.L. has not appealed the termination of his parental rights.
2 At the time of L.W.’s birth in 2012, the mother tested positive for
methamphetamine and the children were removed from her custody. The children
were eventually returned to the mother’s care after she completed treatment.
4
A termination-of-parental-rights and permanency hearing was held on
November 18, 2019, and January 21 and February 3, 2020.3 As of November
2019, the mother had not completed a substance-abuse program and had been
unsuccessfully discharged from an outpatient program for non-attendance.
Recommended mental-health treatment had not been pursued. The mother was
unemployed throughout the juvenile court proceedings and financially dependent
on her own mother. She did not have stable housing. Her visits with S.L. ended
in June 2019 after the child expressed not feeling safe around her and made strong
statements about not wanting to visit with the mother again. The mother continued
to have one visit a week with Z.L. for the duration of the case.
In March 2019, one of the younger children made allegations the mother
and J.W. had abused all four children. The older children denied they had been
abused by the mother and J.W. or witnessed the alleged abuse, and the
department of human services (DHS) was unable to confirm it. At a fully-
supervised visit after the allegations, the visit ended early due to J.W.’s behavior.
At the next visit, the children exhibited extreme fear and the mother’s and J.W.’s
visits with the younger two children were halted pending consultation with the
children’s therapists. Neither parent resumed visits with the younger children.
J.W. has a history of domestic violence and substance abuse. He had
stable housing with his sister’s family for the past year and worked an assortment
of part-time jobs. He has an anger disorder, causing concerns during visits with
service providers. J.W. was in jail for a short period in the spring of 2019. He
3 In the spring of 2020, all four children were moved to alternate foster care
placements.
5
completed a Caring Dads course and attended recommended mental-health
treatment. J.W. failed to comply with some drug screens throughout the CINA
proceedings and tested positive for methamphetamine in December 2019.
C.L. has a lengthy history of methamphetamine and other drug abuse. He
has been in prison twice during Z.L.’s life, the latest an almost-three-year period
including the early stages of this CINA case. C.L. was released from prison in
January 2019, but he relapsed on methamphetamine in August and October. His
parole was revoked and he returned to prison, then moved to a residential facility
in January 2020. C.L. did not believe his incarceration and sporadic presence in
Z.L.’s life harmed the child. By the end of the termination hearing, C.L. had
employment and housing set up for after his release from the residential facility.
On June 10, 2020, the court terminated each parent’s rights pursuant to
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (f) (2019).
The mother, J.W., and C.L. appeal.
II. Standard of Review
Our review of termination-of-parental-rights proceedings is de novo. In re
A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 773 (Iowa 2012). “We give weight to the juvenile court’s
factual findings, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but we
are not bound by them.” Id. (citation omitted). The paramount concern in
termination proceedings is the best interest of the child. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d
793, 798 (Iowa 2006).
III. Analysis
“[I]n termination of parental rights proceedings each parent’s parental rights
are separate adjudications, both factually and legally.” In re D.G., 704 N.W.2d
6454, 459 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005). We consider the strengths and weaknesses of
each parent individually. Id. at 460.
The mother argues the State failed to meet its burden to prove a statutory
ground for termination and termination of her rights is not in the best interests of
the children. J.W. claims the State failed to meet its burden under section
232.116(1), termination is not in the best interests of the children, and the court
should have granted him an extension of time and placed L.W. and C.W. in a family
guardianship. C.L. claims the State failed to meet its burden, termination of his
parental rights is not in Z.L.’s best interests, and the State failed to make
reasonable efforts to reunite him with the child so he should be granted an
additional six months to reunite with the child.
A. Grounds for termination. “When the juvenile court terminates parental
rights on more than one statutory ground, we may affirm the juvenile court’s order
on any ground we find supported by the record.” A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 774. We
find termination was proper for each parent under section 232.116(1)(f).
To terminate a parent’s rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f), the
court must find:
(1) The child is four years of age or older.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of
assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of
the child’s parents for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, or
for the last twelve consecutive months and any trial period at home
has been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that at the present
time the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents
as provided in section 232.102.
7
No parent disputes the first three elements have been met as to each child.
All four children were four years old or older at the time of the termination hearing,
had been adjudicated CINA in September 2018, and had been removed from the
parents’ custody for more than twelve months without a trial period at home. See
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f)(1)–(3). All three parents contest the final element, each
claiming their child or children could be returned to their custody.
The mother testified at the termination hearing that the children should not
be returned to her until she finished substance-abuse treatment and some mental-
health treatment. However, she had recently stopped attending substance-abuse
treatment. Domestic violence was a concern at the outset of the case and
remained largely unaddressed. Nor had the mother begun any mental-health
treatment. The mother did not have employment or any means by which to support
the children. There is clear and convincing evidence the children could not be
returned to her at present, supporting the termination of the mother’s parental
rights to all four children under section 232.116(1)(f).
J.W. tested positive for methamphetamine between the first and second day
of the termination hearing. He had not engaged in any substance-abuse
treatment.4 He completed the Caring Dads course and some therapy sessions.
J.W.’s undiagnosed and untreated methamphetamine use means the children
could not be returned to his custody at the time of the termination hearing. Clear
and convincing evidence supports the termination of J.W.’s parental rights under
section 232.116(1)(f).
4J.W. did not disclose any drug use during his substance-abuse evaluation, and
as a result no treatment was recommended.
8
C.L. was still residing in a department of corrections residential facility at the
end of the termination hearing and could not have Z.L. stay with him. While he
had housing set up outside the facility with his significant other, he was not
available to take custody of Z.L. Clear and convincing evidence supports the
termination of C.L.’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f).
B. Best interests of the children.
Even after we have determined that statutory grounds for termination
exist, we must still determine whether termination is in the children’s
best interests. In evaluating this issue, we “give primary
consideration to the child[ren]’s safety, to the best placement for
furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of the child[ren], and to
the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the
child[ren].”
A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 776 (citations omitted). Parenting “must be constant,
responsible, and reliable.” Id. at 777 (citation omitted).
Three of the children did not feel comfortable having visits with the mother
and had not seen her for several months. The mother lacks stability in her life as
far as employment and housing. She has not followed through with any of the
recommended treatment for her mental health and substance abuse. We find it is
in the children’s best interests to terminate the mother’s parental rights.
J.W. claims his parental rights should not be terminated “due to the close
and loving bond between the father and the minor children.” He was using illegal
drugs during the pendency of the termination petition. Therapy reports for his
children linked behavioral problem with parental contact, and one of his children
made abuse allegations against him. Termination of J.W.’s parental rights is in the
children’s best interests.
9
Z.L. reported not knowing C.L. and did not want to live with him. C.L. and
the child had not lived together in the same home for at least six years, with most
communication happening via phone calls during C.L.’s incarceration. C.L. has
not shown he is able to maintain sobriety while in the community. C.L. did not
show any understanding how his incarceration, intermittent presence in Z.L.’s life,
and lack of stability were harmful to the child’s need for consistency and support.
Terminating C.L.’s rights is in the best interests of the child.
C. Extension. Both J.W. and C.L. request an additional six months to
achieve reunification. J.W. argues the court should have either placed L.W. and
C.W. in a guardianship or granted his request for an extension of time for
reunification. C.L. requests an additional six months, stating DHS repeatedly failed
to provide him with visitation and reasonable efforts to reunite him with Z.L. C.L.
also proposed a guardianship for Z.L.
“[O]ur legislature has carefully constructed a time frame to provide a
balance between the parent’s efforts and the child[ren]’s long-term best interests.”
In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010). We do not require children to wait
for a stable and responsible parent. Id. Moreover, to grant a six-month extension,
the court must “enumerate specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral
changes” providing a basis to determine removal will no longer be necessary at
the end of that time period. Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b).
The children had all been removed from the parents for eighteen months by
the end of the termination hearing. Neither father presented the court with reason
to expect removal would no longer be necessary at the end of an additional six
months. A six-month extension was unwarranted.
10
C.L.’s claim the State failed to provide reasonable efforts is also denied.
Although the State must show reasonable efforts to reunify the family, a parent has
a duty to request services early in the process with adequate time to achieve
changes. See In re L.M., 904 N.W.2d 835, 839–40 (Iowa 2017). “[P]arents have
a responsibility to object when they claim the nature or extent of services is
inadequate,” and failure to do so waives the issue at the time of termination. Id.The only service requested was additional visits with the child. The court ordered
therapeutic visits for father and child to “transition level of supervision with
therapeutic input.” After an unsuccessful therapeutic visit, the visits never
transitioned. Moreover, C.L. testified he did not consider in-person visits while he
was in prison to be good for the child. We find DHS provided all services available
given C.L.’s constantly changing incarceration status, the child’s mental health,
and the father’s lack of progress throughout these proceedings.
Neither father presented testimony or written evidence that the proposed
guardians agreed to act as guardian or that such an arrangement would be in the
children’s best interests. These children have been moved multiple times in their
young lives and deserve stable, permanent homes. Neither a guardianship nor an
extension of time would be in the children’s best interests.
We conclude termination of the appealing parents’ rights is in the children’s
best interests and affirm on all three appeals.
AFFIRMED ON ALL THREE APPEALS.