In the Interest of D.M., T.G., T.G., L.G., and T.G., Minor Children ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                        IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 19-0914
    Filed September 25, 2019
    IN THE INTEREST OF D.M., T.G., T.G., L.G., and T.G.,
    Minor Children,
    L.C., Mother,
    Appellant,
    T.G., Father,
    Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District
    Associate Judge.
    A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to five
    minor children. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
    Christopher R. Kemp of Kemp & Sease, Des Moines, (until withdrawal) and
    Deborah L. Johnson of Deborah L. Johnson Law Office PC, Altoona, for appellant
    mother.
    Agnes G. Warutere of Warutere Law Firm, PLLC, Ankeny, for appellant
    father.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anna T. Stoeffler (until withdrawal)
    and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee State.
    Erin Mayfield of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor
    children.
    2
    Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Greer, JJ.
    3
    GREER, Judge.
    A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental
    rights to five minor children. On our review, we affirm.
    I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
    The father, T.G., and the mother, L.C., are the parents of five minor children
    born in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2015, and 2017.1 Since 2015, when one of the children
    was born with THC in his system, the family has been involved with the Iowa
    Department of Human Services (DHS). Upon meeting the family, DHS noted
    additional concerns, including the parents’ failure to enroll the oldest child in
    school, the family’s unstable housing, warrants for the mother’s arrest, and the
    father’s drug and domestic-violence criminal history.            Exposure to excessive
    violence in the familial home triggered significant reactive and aggressive behavior
    in the oldest four siblings. As a result, they required ongoing therapy throughout
    the proceedings leading to termination.
    Because of these ongoing issues, on February 4, 2016, the juvenile court
    removed the four oldest children from the home and placed them with the paternal
    grandmother.      Following the removal, on March 8, all four children were
    adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA). In October, the grandmother
    dropped the children off with the mother because she could no longer care for
    them. Despite the earlier removal, the juvenile court allowed the children to stay
    with the mother under DHS supervision.
    1
    At first, L.C. insisted her relationship with T.G. ended one year before the youngest child
    was born. L.C. was adamant that her new paramour, and not T.G., was the biological
    father of her youngest child. Paternity testing later established that T.G. is the child’s
    biological father.
    4
    Multiple allegations of domestic abuse between the mother and father and
    the mother and her new paramour required a second removal in June of 2017.
    Despite claims of separate living arrangements, the parents conceived a fifth child,
    born in December 2017. This child was removed from the parents at birth. The
    court adjudicated her a CINA on January 12, 2018.             The court issued its
    permanency ruling in December 2018 recommending the State proceed with
    termination of parental rights of all the children.
    At the time of the termination hearing and for the twenty previous months,
    custody of the four older children remained out of their parents’ care. The youngest
    child was in foster care for the fourteen months since her birth.
    Citing the children’s best interests, on May 19, 2019, the juvenile court
    found that the State had established grounds for termination and no exceptions
    applied to prevent termination. The court terminated the mother’s and the father’s
    parental rights to all five children. The parents appeal. We will discuss other facts
    below, as relevant.
    II. Standard of Review.
    Our review of termination of parental rights proceedings is de novo. In re
    L.T., 
    924 N.W.2d 521
    , 526 (Iowa 2019). We give weight to the juvenile court’s
    factual findings, but they do not bind us. In re M.D., 
    921 N.W.2d 229
    , 232 (Iowa
    2018). The paramount concern is the children’s best interests. 
    Id.
    III. Analysis.
    To begin, we use a three-step analysis to review termination-of-parental-
    rights cases under Iowa Code chapter 232 (2019). See In re P.L., 
    778 N.W.2d 33
    ,
    39–40 (Iowa 2010). If the State establishes a ground for termination under Iowa
    5
    Code section 232.116(1), we then consider whether termination is in the children’s
    best interests. 
    Id.
     If the best-interests framework supports termination, we must
    consider whether any statutory exceptions exist to preclude termination of parental
    rights. See 
    Iowa Code § 232.116
    (3); P.L., 
    778 N.W.2d at
    39–40.
    The mother and father’s parental rights were terminated under Iowa Code
    section 232.116(1)(f)2 as to the three oldest children, and under section
    232.116(1)(h)3 as to the two youngest children. These parents separately appeal,
    and we separately address the termination of their parental rights.
    A. Mother. On appeal, the mother argues: (1) the State failed to prove that
    she could not assume custody of the children; (2) termination is not in the children’s
    2 Termination is appropriate under section 232.116(1)(f) if the State can show all of the
    following,
    (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.
    3
    Termination is appropriate under section 232.116(1)(h) if the State can prove all of the
    following,
    (1) The child is three years of age or younger
    (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 six months of the last twelve months, or for the
    last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less
    than thirty days.
    (4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be
    returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in section 232.102
    at the present time.
    6
    best interests; and (3) the juvenile court should have granted her a six-month
    extension to reunite with the children.
    1. Statutory grounds for termination. The mother only challenges the final
    element of Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (h): whether she could resume
    custody of the children. We conclude that the State has proved this element by
    clear and convincing evidence. The mother has failed to address her housing
    instability, inconsistently attended therapy, failed to follow through on substance-
    abuse treatment, and only sporadically participated in domestic-violence services.
    Despite the violence the father has perpetrated on the mother, the court found the
    parents were still “in a toxic, dysfunctional relationship.” The court also noted that
    the parents were deceitful about their living situation and relationship status. Even
    at the time of the termination hearing, it was unclear whether they were living
    together.
    As for parenting concerns, the mother lacked understanding of the negative
    impact of domestic abuse on the children. Claiming that her parenting was not an
    issue, she failed to appreciate that her children’s aggressive behaviors were
    abnormal.    In that regard, follow-through with the children’s counselors was
    missing. Given these ongoing issues, we conclude the State has proven that the
    children could not be returned to the mother’s care.
    2. Best interests. The mother argues termination is not in the children’s
    best interests. We disagree. After experiencing violence in the family home, all
    four oldest children remain in therapy to address the impact of trauma and to
    address their aggressive behaviors following visits with the mother. Because the
    youngest child has never lived with her parents, she has no bond with them.
    7
    Addressing the best interests, two of the children’s therapists recommended
    ceasing visits with the mother because they harmed the child’s wellbeing. As an
    example, a therapist reported that during a phone call between the mother and
    another child, the mother “encouraged him to hit back if peers hit/hurt him.”
    Eventually, DHS stopped visits between the mother and the children “due to her
    unaddressed mental health and inability to control her emotions” after she had an
    angry outburst at the DHS office before a visit. Despite all of this, the mother does
    not understand or acknowledge her parenting deficiencies and her role in the
    trauma the children have experienced. We conclude termination is in all the
    children’s best interests.
    3. Six-month extension. Alternatively, the mother requests a six-month
    extension to reunite with her children. “In order to continue placement for six
    months, the statute requires the court to make a determination that the need for
    removal will no longer exist at the end of the extension.” In re A.A.G., 
    708 N.W.2d 85
    , 92 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005).
    After considering all of the evidence and recommendation of specialists, the
    juvenile court found no reason to give the mother another six months. We do not
    either. History establishes that the mother cannot make the necessary changes in
    the next six months.         Based on these facts, a six-month extension is not
    appropriate.
    B. Father. The father challenges the statutory grounds for termination and
    the State’s reasonable efforts to reunite him with the children, and he argues there
    is an exception to termination for the oldest child because she is currently placed
    with the paternal grandmother. We conclude all of his claims lack merit.
    8
    1. Grounds for termination.
    i. Youngest child. The father argues the court never removed the youngest
    child from his physical custody and there were no grounds to remove the child after
    his paternity was established. See 
    Iowa Code § 232.116
    (1)(h)(3). There is no
    evidence the father raised this issue at the juvenile court. See Meier v. Senecaut,
    
    641 N.W.2d 532
    , 537 (Iowa 2002) (“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review
    that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before
    we will decide them on appeal.”). In any event, the father’s argument fails because
    the child’s removal from the mother’s physical custody was for the requisite amount
    of time. See In re W.D., No. 18-0151, 
    2018 WL 1433058
    , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar.
    21, 2018) (“[T]he requisite removal time period . . . clock started running when the
    child was removed from the mother. As we previously stated, ‘removal of the child
    from the mother is sufficient to support termination of the father’s parental rights.’”
    (quoting In re Z.G., No. 16-2187, 
    2017 WL 1086227
    , at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 22,
    2017))).
    Even if the father had raised this issue in the juvenile court, we have no
    reason to believe the court would have placed the child in his custody. Although
    he visited this child, he often lacked necessary supplies and visitation never moved
    to an unsupervised status. More importantly, when the father filed a motion for
    visits with the youngest child, he had not addressed the domestic-violence issues
    that led to the older children’s removal. During his incarceration, the father failed
    to participate in suggested services. After his release in January 2018, he did not
    start therapy until April 30. Even then, his participation in the Iowa Domestic Abuse
    Program did not start until August, and there is no indication in the record that he
    9
    ever completed this program. Consequently, the effort required for reunification
    was absent.
    ii. All children. The father also argues the State failed to prove the children
    could not be returned to him at the time of the termination hearing. See 
    Iowa Code § 232.116
    (1)(f)(4), (h)(4).     We disagree.      As the juvenile court noted in the
    termination order, “The father cannot and/or will not understand his role in
    exposing the children to violence and long lasting trauma[.]” He had not taken
    accountability for his actions, and he was only beginning to understand trauma and
    how it impacted them. The court noted the father had not adequately participated
    in mental-health and substance-abuse treatment. We conclude the father could
    not resume custody of the children at the time of termination.
    2. Reasonable efforts. The father argues DHS failed to make reasonable
    efforts to return the children to him by (1) conspiring against him and (2) failing to
    notify his mother of the June 2017 removal.             The DHS must “make every
    reasonable effort” to return children to their home “as quickly as possible consistent
    with” their best interests. 
    Iowa Code § 232.102
    (9). But DHS need only provide
    services that “are reasonable under the circumstances.” In re S.J., 
    620 N.W.2d 522
    , 525 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000).
    The juvenile court considered and rejected his first argument in a detailed
    CINA ruling on July 12, 2018, denying the father’s motion for reasonable efforts.4
    4
    Efforts included: family team meetings, substance-abuse evaluations, parenting classes,
    domestic-violence services, FIP, employment assistance, protective daycare, child-care
    reimbursement, free store referral, Caring Dad’s referral and classes, play therapy,
    concurrent-planning staffing, bus passes, gas cards, supervised visitations, parent-partner
    referral, and housing assistance.
    10
    The father does not raise any new claims on appeal. We agree with the juvenile
    court that DHS made reasonable efforts to reunite him with the children.
    As to the second argument, DHS has a duty to notify certain relatives of a
    child’s removal from the parent. See In re N.V., 
    877 N.W.2d 146
    , 150–52 (Iowa
    Ct. App. 2016). However, this right belongs to the relative and not the parent, and
    the father lacks standing to argue his mother’s rights in this termination case. See
    In re K.R., 
    737 N.W.2d 321
    , 323 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (holding one party did not
    have standing to raise arguments on another party's behalf in an effort to obtain a
    reversal of the termination order). But see In re R.B., 
    832 N.W.2d 375
    , 382 (Iowa
    Ct. App. 2013) (finding father suffered no injustice where DHS failed to notify his
    mother of the removal, after assuming, without deciding, his right to object on
    behalf of his mother). In any event, the evidence supports the inability of the
    grandmother to care for all the children after the June 2017 removal.5 Even after
    the father went to stay with the grandmother in April 2018, she still did not reengage
    with the children. Moreover, when the court allowed her motion to intervene and
    granted her custody of the oldest child in December 2018, it declined to grant her
    custody of the other children. There is no evidence she was willing or able to care
    for the children in June 2017.
    3. Best interests. The father argues termination of his parental rights is not
    in the children’s best interests. Although he blames others, the father has never
    parented the children on his own and never progressed beyond supervised visits
    5
    The grandmother went nineteen months with no contact after relinquishing control of the
    four grandchildren back to the mother and took medical leave for mental-health concerns
    of her own.
    11
    with any of the children. In fact, therapists for three of the children suggested
    stopping visits with the father because of the children’s fear of their father and the
    negative impact the visits had on the children.6 The father minimizes the abuse
    he perpetrated on the mother as well as the trauma the abuse caused his children.
    As noted, the children are thriving in their current placements. Although one
    of the children is not currently in a pre-adoptive placement, the court “will not refuse
    to terminate the rights of parents who would otherwise be terminated because an
    adoptive home has not been secured.” In re. M.L.T., No. 10–1633, 
    2011 WL 1584996
    , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2011). We agree with the juvenile court
    that termination of the father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.
    4. Exception to termination. The father argues there is an applicable
    exception to terminating his parental rights to the oldest child because she is in the
    grandmother’s custody. See 
    Iowa Code § 232.116
    (3)(a) (providing an exception
    to termination when a relative has legal custody of the child). The court may apply
    this permissive exception “based on the unique circumstances of each case and
    the best interests of the child.” In re A.S., 
    906 N.W.2d 467
    , 475 (Iowa 2018)
    (quoting In re M.W., 
    876 N.W.2d 212
    , 219 (Iowa 2016)). It is the father’s burden
    to prove the exception applies. Id. at 476.
    We decline to apply any exception to termination under these facts. Given
    the emotional struggles of the oldest child, permanency must be primary. She is
    thriving in the paternal grandmother’s care. Thus, we see no reason to deny this
    6
    The juvenile court detailed the counselor descriptions of each of the older children’s
    reactions to contact with the father based on the violent past they had all experienced with
    him mitigating against further contact. As for the youngest child, no bond existed with the
    father.
    12
    child the stability and permanency she needs. We agree with the juvenile court
    that no unique circumstances exist to warrant applying the section 232.116(3)(a)
    exception to termination.
    IV. Disposition.
    For all of the above stated reasons, we affirm the juvenile court’s termination
    of the mother and father’s parental rights to all five children.
    AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-0914

Filed Date: 9/25/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021