IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0490
Filed June 10, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF S.F. and A.F.,
Minor Children,
D.F., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Timothy Tupper, Davenport, for appellant father.
Clark Miljush, Rock Island, Illinois, for mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Atttorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd and Kathryn
Lang, Assistant Attorneys General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, Julie
Walton, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Matthew Hatch of Hatch Law Firm, P.C., Bettendorf, for minor child.
Patricia A. Rolfstad, Davenport, for minor child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.
2
DANILSON, C.J.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two children,
S.F. and A.F.1 Because the father does not challenge that the statutory grounds
for termination exist, it is in the best interests of the children to terminate, and no
factor precludes termination, we affirm.
Our review of termination decisions is de novo. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33,
40 (Iowa 2010). We give weight to the juvenile court’s findings, especially
assessing witness credibility, although we are not bound by them. In re D.W.,
791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). An order terminating parental rights will be
upheld if there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination under
Iowa Code section 232.116 (2013). Id. Evidence is “clear and convincing” when
there are no serious or substantial doubts as to the correctness of the
conclusions of law drawn from the evidence. Id.
Iowa Code chapter 232 termination of parental rights follows a three-step
analysis. P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 39. The court must first determine whether a
ground for termination under section 232.116(1) has been established. Id. If a
ground for termination has been established, the court must apply the best-
interest framework set out in section 232.116(2) to decide if the grounds for
termination should result in termination of parental rights. Id. Finally, if the
statutory best-interest framework supports termination of parental rights, the
court must consider if any of the statutory exceptions set out in section
232.116(3) weigh against the termination of parental rights. Id.
1
The mother’s parental rights have also been terminated. She does not appeal.
3
The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights to both children
pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (f), (i), and (l).2 The father does
not dispute that the statutory grounds for termination have been met. Thus, any
claim of error related to the statutory grounds has been waived. See Hyler v.
Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864, 870 (Iowa 1996) (“[O]ur review is confined to those
propositions relied upon by the appellant for reversal on appeal.”).
The father maintains it is not in the best interests of the children to
terminate his parental rights. He also maintains that he should have been given
additional time to work towards reunification, pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.104(2)(b).
The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) first became involved
with the family in July 2009 because of issues involving parental substance
abuse and domestic violence. The children were removed from the family home
from May 14, 2013, until August 18, 2014. The children were returned to their
parents’ care from August 18 until September 26, 2014, but were removed when
DHS learned that the parents had begun drinking again. The father maintains
that he does not have a drinking problem and is not addicted to alcohol although
he has been diagnosed with a “severe alcohol-related disorder.” Additionally, the
father missed a visit on January 10, 2015. He claimed he was ill and could not
attend, but when the care coordinator visited him at his residence, he appeared
to be intoxicated. At a January 21, 2015 visit, the father smelled of alcohol and
2
Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.201(1)(e)(2)(2) directs the appellant to attach a
copy of the termination order to their petition on appeal. Here, the appellant only
attached every other page of the order. We urge appellants to be fully compliant in the
future.
4
behaved inappropriately. A test conducted after the visit confirmed he had been
drinking. The father is in denial about the severity of his addiction. He maintains
DHS is only involved with the family due to the mother’s issues with drinking. At
the termination hearing, he stated he does not have a problem with alcohol and
he will continue to drink. He believes he can keep the children safe because he
has family who can care for them when he drinks. However, in the past, the
father has imbibed until he passed out while the children were in his care. S.F.,
who was fourteen at the time of the termination hearing, has stated that she is
“ready to move on” and “tired of the cycle with her parents’ addiction.” The
juvenile court noted that S.F. is a good student and “mature beyond her years.”
The court also observed that S.F. “would love to return to her parents’ custody if
they could maintain sobriety but is reportedly resigned to the fact they are
powerless over their addiction to alcohol at this time.” S.F. also does not want
her sister being raised in and out of homes.
Although it is clear the children and their father share a loving relationship
and are bonded, we believe termination of the father’s parental rights is in the
best interests of the children. The needs of the children are paramount to saving
the parent-child bond in these circumstances. Further, the children’s foster
family would like to adopt the children, and they support S.F.’s need to stay in
contact with her parents, which we find commendable. We also do not believe
an additional six months to work towards reunification would alleviate the current
issues and concerns as the father is in denial regarding his addiction to alcohol
and the effect it has on his children.
5
Finding no factor in section 232.116(3) that precludes termination of the
father’s parental rights, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.