IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0793
Filed July 9, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF V.A. and M.A.,
Minor Children,
C.A., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Gary K.
Anderson, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Roberta Megel of the State Public Defender Office, Council Bluffs, for
appellant father.
Sara Benson of Rouwenhorst & Rouwenhorst, P.C., Council Bluffs, for
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Matthew Wilber, County Attorney, and Eric Stovers and Dawn
Landon, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellee State.
Mandy Whiddon, Council Bluffs, for minor child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.
2
DANILSON, C.J.
A father appeals from the juvenile court order terminating his parental
rights to his children V.A. and M.A.1 The father maintains the statutory grounds
for termination have not been met because the State failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that the children could not be returned to his care at the time
of the termination hearing. He also maintains termination of his parental rights
was not in the children’s best interests. The father recently relapsed with
methamphetamine. He had a brain injury that makes it difficult for him to recall
information, and he also suffers from a seizure disorder. The father fails to take
his medication regularly and attend medical appointments. He relies on his aunt,
whom he also lives with, for assistance to pay his bills and ensure his disability
benefits continue, and there is not room in the aunt’s home for the children to
live. Thus, there is clear and convincing evidence the children could not be
returned to the father’s care at the time of the termination hearing. Moreover, the
young children had been out of the home approximately one year at the time of
the hearing, and permanency is in their best interests. We affirm the juvenile
court’s termination of the father’s parental rights to both children.
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
1
The mother separately filed a timely notice of appeal. However, she failed to filed her
petition on appeal within fifteen days as required by Iowa Rule of Appellate
Procedure 6.201(1)(b). The mother’s appeal was dismissed by an order of our supreme
court on June 11, 2015.
3
upheld if there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination under
Iowa Code section 232.116 (2015). 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.
The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights to both children
pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (h) (2015). When the juvenile
court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we may
affirm the order on any ground we find supported in the record. D.W., 791
N.W.2d at 707. Iowa Code section 232.116(h) provides that termination may be
ordered when the children are three years of age or younger, have been
adjudicated a child in need of assistance, have been removed from the physical
custody of the parent for at least six of the last twelve months, and cannot be
returned to the parent’s custody at the time of the termination hearing.
Here, the father contends the State has not proved by clear and
convincing evidence that V.A. and M.A. could not be returned to his care at the
4
time of the hearing in March 2015. When the Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS) became involved with the family in March 2014, the father tested
positive for methamphetamines, amphetamines, PCP, and benzodiazepines.
The father was ordered to complete a drug dependency program during the
pendency of the case but he was never able to do so successfully. The father
admitted relapsing and using methamphetamine in February 2015—
approximately one month before the hearing. Additionally, the father has
ongoing health concerns. He suffered an unfortunate brain injury that makes it
difficult for him to recall information. He also suffers from a seizure disorder, but
due to his memory issues, he struggles to take his medication regularly and
attend scheduled doctor’s appointment. The father resides with his aunt and
relies on her for assistance to pay his bills and ensure his disability benefits
continue. The aunt, the father, and two other adults live in the aunt’s two-
bedroom home. The DHS case manager testified this was not a suitable housing
arrangement for the children as there was not room for them in the home.
Additionally, the father has refused to complete a parenting class during the year-
long pendency of the case. There is clear and convincing evidence the children
could not be returned to his care at the time of the hearing.
The father also maintains termination of his parental rights is not in the
children’s best interests. At the time of the hearing, the children had been out of
the father’s care for approximately one year. Although the father and children
are bonded to each other, “we cannot deprive [children] of permanency after the
State has proved a ground for termination under section 232.116(1) by hoping
someday a parent will learn to parent and be able to provide a stable home for
5
the child[ren].” P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 41. Termination of the father’s parental
rights will allow V.A. and M.A. to achieve permanency. See In re A.M., 843
N.W.2d 100, 113 (Iowa 2014) (citing In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 802 (Iowa 2006)
(Cady, J., concurring specially) (noting the “defining elements in a child’s best
interest” are the child’s safety and the “need for a permanent home”)). It is in the
children’s best interests to terminate the father’s parental rights.
Finding no factor in section 232.116(3) that precludes termination of the
father’s parental rights, we affirm the juvenile court’s order.
AFFIRMED.