IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1674
Filed December 23, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF A.E.,
Minor Child,
C.E., Mother,
Appellant,
B.G., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary Timko,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
John S. Moeller of John S. Moeller P.C., Sioux City, for appellant-mother.
Andrew J. Twinamatsiko of Crary, Huff, Ringgenberg, Hartnett & Storm,
P.C., Sioux City, for appellant-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Marchelle M. Denker of Office of State Public Defender, Sioux City,
attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
A father1 appeals the termination of his parental rights to one child, A.E.,
claiming clear and convincing evidence does not support the termination of his
parental rights. We affirm the juvenile court’s order.
We review de novo, proceedings terminating parental rights. See In re
A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). The three-step statutory framework
governing the termination of parental rights is well established and need not be
repeated herein. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). The juvenile
court issued a thorough and well-reasoned order terminating the father’s parental
rights, and we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the juvenile
court’s order as our own.
The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(d), (h), and (i) (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 by the record. In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d
703, 707 (Iowa 2010).
Termination is appropriate under section 232.116(1)(h) where the State
proves 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 of the last twelve months, or for
the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has
been less than thirty days.
1
The mother timely filed a notice of appeal but did not timely file her petition on appeal.
The appeal was dismissed by the Iowa Supreme Court.
3
(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.
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h). The father does not dispute the first three elements
have been proved. Instead, he argues the State failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that the child could not be returned to his care.
In finding termination was proper, the juvenile court reasoned:
[The father] has admitted to a history of marijuana and
methamphetamine use since he was thirteen years old. [The
father] also admitted to having experimented with cocaine and
hallucinogens (K2). While [the father] denied any recent use of
alcohol in his August 20, 2014 chemical dependency assessment
(Last Use: 13-14 years ago), he admitted to “occasional use” of
alcohol in December 2014. The police reports from the May 2015
domestic violence incident also indicated he was intoxicated.
There is no evidence [the father] has completed any treatment
program as recommended.
[The father] reported being diagnosed with ADHD in
kindergarten and took medication for this through middle school.
He stated that he struggled with focus and feeling overwhelmed.
He has been treated for anxiety and prescribed medication. He
reported four treatment episodes in his lifetime, with the most
recent treatment while he was incarcerated in prison two years ago.
[The father] has not involved himself in any mental health treatment
or been assessed for the need for medication. It was
recommended throughout this case that he go to Siouxland Mental
Health Center, but he never went. . . . [The father], himself, put it
best when he acknowledged that he has not accomplished anything
in the past 11 months. It does not appear that he is going to
accomplish enough within a reasonable amount of time to have
[A.E.] returned to his care.
....
[The father] has yet to begin to fully address his substance
abuse issue. . . . [The father] admitted to using marijuana in June
and meth intravenously in May. He testified he is clean now, has
newer friends, and a better outlook. He plans to stay with [the
mother]. He is willing to go to inpatient treatment now even though
this was the recommendation at the beginning of the case. [The
father] has completed several substance abuse evaluations with
several different agencies and has never followed through with the
treatment recommendations. “Now” is too late.
4
....
Despite services offeredIprovided, [the father] and [the
mother] have been unable or unwilling to stabilize their lifestyles
and address their dysfunctional and toxic relationship. The
circumstances leading to the adjudication of [A.E.] continue to exist.
Neither [the father] nor [the mother] has taken any affirmative action
to assume their roles as [A.E.]’s parent. Neither [the father] nor [the
mother] has met any financial obligations. [The father] has made
no reasonable effort to complete responsibilities of the case
permanency plan. . . . Neither [the father] nor [the mother] has
done anything to maintain a place of importance in [A.E.]’s life.
They are simply visitors who come to see him at grandma’s house,
not his parents.
Upon our review of the record we agree with the district court’s order.
There is clear and convincing evidence A.E. could not be returned to his father’s
care at the time of the termination hearing due to the father’s unaddressed
mental health and substance abuse issues, and his lack of suitable housing and
employment. A child should not endlessly await the maturity of his parent,
particularly when he is of tender years. See D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707.
We affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating the father’s parental rights
without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a)-(e).
AFFIRMED.