IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1228
Filed November 13, 2014
IN THE INTEREST OF K.K. AND K.K.,
Minor Children,
R.K., Father,
Appellant,
J.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Charles D.
Fagan, District Associate Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental
rights to their two children. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Michael Hooper, Council Bluffs, for appellant father.
Mark J. Rater, Council Bluffs, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Janet L. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney
General, Matthew Wilbur, County Attorney, and Eric Strovers, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee State.
Marti Nerenstone, Council Bluffs, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental
rights to their two children, born in 2009 and 2011. The mother (1) challenges
the grounds for termination, (2) contends termination was not in the children’s
best interests, and (3) asserts the juvenile court should have declined to
terminate based on the bond she shared with the children. The father contends
(1) the grounds for termination were not satisfied, (2) the Department of Human
Services failed to make reasonable efforts towards reunification, (3) termination
was not in the children’s best interests, and (4) the juvenile court should have
granted one of the exceptions to termination.
I. Mother
The family was referred to the department in 2011 after the younger child
tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. The children were adjudicated in
need of assistance and the mother received services to address her drug
addiction.
The mother cooperated with those services and was allowed to keep her
children with her for twenty-one months. Her progress was so marked that the
juvenile court granted the district court concurrent jurisdiction to adjudicate the
mother’s request for full custody.
The mother had a setback in 2013. She relapsed and the juvenile court
ordered the children removed from her care.
To her credit, the mother made significant efforts to return to a path of
sobriety. She attended Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous meetings
three times a week and readied an apartment for the children. Despite these
3
efforts, she relapsed again in February 2014. By her own admission, she
continued to use methamphetamine in March and April, with her usage
increasing in April. In May, the mother reported her drug usage to service
providers and re-committed to services. By this time, however, the State had
filed a petition to terminate her parental rights to the children.
At the termination hearing, a department case worker recommended
termination of the mother’s parental rights, citing the “length of time that we have
provided services” and the mother’s inability “to maintain a safe environment for
herself and the kids.” The juvenile court adopted the recommendation and
terminated the mother’s parental rights under several statutory provisions.
On our de novo review, we find clear and convincing evidence to support
termination under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2013) (requiring
proof of several elements including proof child cannot be returned to parent’s
custody). While the mother testified to sobriety for fifty days, her relapses
suggested she had not internalized the lessons she learned during inpatient and
outpatient treatment.
We recognize the mother generally had positive interactions with the
children during supervised visits and shared a strong bond with them. But her
inability to maintain her sobriety had an adverse effect on the older child in
particular, who expressed anger towards his mother during some of the visits.
The younger child also showed aggressive behaviors in the foster home,
although those behaviors may have been a function of his age rather than
interactions with his mother. Be that as it may, there is no question both children
were at risk of future harm in their mother’s care, given her repeated return to
4
methamphetamine use. Accordingly, we conclude termination was in the
children’s best interests. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2). For the same reason, we
conclude the court acted appropriately in declining to invoke the exception to
termination based on the parent-child bond. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c).
II. Father
The father’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to several statutory
provisions, including sections 232.116(1)(f) and (h). Like the mother, the father
was not in a position to have the children returned to his custody. According to
the mother, he began using methamphetamine when he was fourteen and
continued to use the drug for the next three decades. The mother initially
appeared fearful of him and, as a result, the department sought and obtained a
court order prohibiting contact between them.
The father’s visits with the children were always supervised. The visitation
supervisor expressed concern with the father’s parenting style, which was based
on intimidation and physical control. There was scant if any indication the father
could parent the children on an unsupervised basis, either in the short or long
term. Accordingly, termination was warranted under sections 232.116(1)(f) and
(h).
In reaching this conclusion, we have considered the father’s contention
that his reunification attempts were stymied by the department’s unwillingness to
provide reasonable reunification services. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493-
94 (Iowa 2000). The father’s argument finds some support in the record.
Contrary to the State’s assertion, the father timely and repeatedly sought
transportation assistance to attend a drug testing facility and a required batterers’
5
education program. The department did not furnish this assistance. However, a
department social worker offered to set up drug testing at a location closer to his
home, only to have the father defensively respond he did not need drug testing
because he did not use drugs. His assertion was belied by a positive drug test
early in the proceedings.
The father also did not follow-up with batterers’ education, even though a
service provider gave him information about a program near his home. And, he
declined supervised visits for a period of time. In short, he did not cooperate with
offered services. Under these circumstances, we conclude the department made
reasonable efforts toward reunification notwithstanding its unwillingness to
transport him to the drug testing facility and batterers’ education program.
This brings us to the father’s best interest argument. Given the father’s
history of methamphetamine abuse and his unwillingness to undergo regular
drug testing, the children would not have been safe in his care. Termination of
his parental rights was in the children’s best interests. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116. For the same reason, the court acted appropriately in declining to
invoke an exception to termination based on the parent-child bond. See Iowa
Code § 232.116(3)(c).
We affirm the termination of the mother’s and father’s parental rights to the
two children.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.