IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-2003
Filed February 24, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF T.S.,
Minor Child,
T.S., Father,
Appellant,
J.R., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Mark F. Schlenker,
Judge.
A father appeals from a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights
to his one-year-old son. AFFIRMED.
Karen Taylor of Taylor Law Offices, Des Moines, for appellant father.
Joanne Picray of Picray Law, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Janet L. Hoffman, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
M. Kathryn Miller of the Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, for minor
child.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2
TABOR, Presiding Judge.
A father struggling with a methamphetamine addiction challenges the
juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to his one-year-old son, T.S.
At trial, the father unsuccessfully sought to delay the child’s permanency for an
additional six months so that he could secure a job, find stable housing, and
participate in substance abuse treatment. On appeal, the father challenges the
statutory grounds for termination; contends severing their relationship is not in his
son’s best interests; and asserts because the child is living with a family friend,
his routine would not be disrupted if the father had more time to work toward
reunification.
Like the juvenile court, we see “very little evidence” in the record the father
would perform differently in the next few months of T.S.’s life than he did in the
first nine months. Accordingly, an extension is not warranted. The record
supports a statutory basis for terminating the father’s parental rights and it is in
T.S.’s best interests to move promptly toward a stable, long-term placement.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
T.S. was born in April 2014; his mother used methamphetamine
throughout the pregnancy, not realizing she was pregnant until one month before
T.S. was born. The father used methamphetamine alongside the mother. At
eight months of age, T.S. suffered a head injury during an incident of domestic
violence; his mother threw things at his father, who was holding T.S. on his lap.
After that incident, the juvenile court adjudicated T.S. as a child in need of
assistance (CINA) on February 25, 2015. The Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS) removed T.S. from his father’s custody on February 27, 2015,
3
suspecting the father was using methamphetamine while caring for the child.
T.S. has been in foster care since March 2015.
After the child’s removal, the father tested positive for methamphetamine.
In April 2015, the father followed the DHS recommendation to obtain a substance
abuse evaluation and then started treatment. In May 2015, the father received a
deferred judgment on a pending third-degree burglary charge and was placed on
probation. During the summer of 2015, the father lived in a tent on the
fairgrounds in Polk County and worked at a fast food restaurant. During this
time, the father had twice-weekly visits with T.S. The father bonded with the
child, and social workers did not have concerns about his parenting skills. But
the father was not dependable; he would arrive late, leave early, or miss visits
altogether. The visits never advanced beyond fully supervised.
Then on August 31, the father was arrested on new criminal charges,
including possession of methamphetamine, theft, and interference with official
acts. He remained in jail until September 29, 2015—missing eight visits with T.S.
Meanwhile, on August 25, 2015, the State filed a petition to terminate the
parental rights of both the mother and the father, alleging grounds under Iowa
Code sections 232.116(h) and (l) (2015). Both parents testified at the termination
hearing held on October 8, 2015. The father acknowledged missing one of three
outpatient substance abuse treatment sessions since his release from jail. His
new criminal charges were still pending at the time of the termination hearing.
On November 9, 2015, the juvenile court issued an order terminating the rights of
4
both parents on the grounds alleged in the State’s petition. The father appeals.1
II. Standard of Review
Our review of juvenile court orders terminating parental rights is de novo.
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). We are not bound by the juvenile
court’s findings of fact, but we give them weight, particularly when assessing
witness credibility. Id. We will uphold an order severing the parent-child
relationship if the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support at
least one ground for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1). In re
D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). Evidence is “clear and convincing”
when there are no “serious or substantial doubts as to the correctness [of]
conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.” Id.
III. Analysis of Father’s Claims
The juvenile court relied, in part, on Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h)
when terminating the father’s parental rights. That subsection requires proof the
child is three years of age or younger, has been adjudicated CINA, has been
removed from the parent’s physical custody for at least six months of the last
twelve months, and cannot be returned to the parent’s custody “at the present
time.” Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h). We find clear and convincing evidence to
support that decision.2
The record shows the father was unable to resume custody of T.S. at the
time of the termination hearing, and, in fact, the father did not ask for that result.
1
The supreme court dismissed the mother’s appeal for failure to comply with the filing
deadlines.
2
We can affirm on any ground relied upon by the district court and supported by the
record. In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707.
5
Rather, his only request of the juvenile court was for a six-month extension so he
could “get [his] sobriety, . . . get done with [his] treatment, and get into
appropriate housing.” On appeal, the father argues the juvenile court erred in
terminating his rights under paragraph (h) because the State did not prove by
clear and convincing evidence the child cannot be returned “within a relatively
short period of time.” That is not the language of the statute. The State met its
burden to show the child could not be presently reunited with his father.
The father also argues “there would be no disruption to the child” in the
event the father was given additional time to demonstrate sobriety because T.S.
is in the care of a close family friend. To extend placement for six months,
section 232.104(2)(b) requires the court to make a determination the cause for
removal will be remedied at the end of the extension. See In re A.A.G., 708
N.W.2d 85, 92 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005). In this case, an experienced DHS case
worker opined that the father’s substance abuse history suggested an additional
six months would not be enough time to ensure sobriety and stability. The
worker was concerned about the “up and down” nature of the father’s
participation in services and his relapses during the course of the CINA case. In
her words: “the plans never seem to follow through.” We credit her testimony on
appeal.
In his final argument, the father urges termination is not in T.S.’s best
interest. In deciding what is in T.S.’s best interest, we give primary consideration
to his safety; the best placement for furthering his long-term nurturing and
growth; and to his physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs. See
Iowa Code § 232.116(2). We glean insight for the determination of a child’s long-
6
range best interest from evidence of a parent’s past performance because that
performance indicates the quality of future care that parent is capable of
providing. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 2000). The father’s past
performance is not reassuring. The father persisted in his methamphetamine
use and criminality while his young son waited in foster care. T.S. was out of his
care from late February until the October termination hearing, but the father had
yet to achieve real progress in treating his addiction or obtaining suitable
housing. We agree with the juvenile court’s assessment that termination of the
father’s parental rights provides T.S. with “a better chance at achieving
permanency and stability in his life.” The case worker testified the family friend
may be a viable long-term placement for T.S. Finally, no factor in section
232.116(3) weighs against termination.
AFFIRMED.
In the Interest of T.S., Minor Child, T.S., Father, J.R., Mother
Combined Opinion