IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1482
Filed January 24, 2018
IN THE INTEREST OF W.B.,
Minor Child,
M.G., Mother,
Appellant,
D.B., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, Mary L.
McCollum Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother and a father separately appeal from the order terminating their
parental rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Thomas E. Gustafson of Gustafson Law Firm, Denison, for appellant
mother.
Dean A. Fankhauser of Fankhauser Rachel, P.L.C., Sioux City, for
appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Kara L. Minnihan, Onawa, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
2
DANILSON, Chief Judge.
A mother and a father separately appeal from the order terminating their
parental rights to their child, W.B., pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e),
(h), and (l) (2017).1
This court reviews termination proceedings de novo. See In re A.M., 843
N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). “On appeal, we may affirm the juvenile court’s
termination order on any ground that we find supported by clear and convincing
evidence.” In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010).
1
Section 232.116(1) authorizes a court to terminate a parent’s rights where:
(e) The court finds that all of the following have occurred:
(1) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance
pursuant to section 232.96.
(2) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the
child’s parents for a period of at least six consecutive months.
(3) There is clear and convincing evidence that the parents have
not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child during the
previous six consecutive months and have made no reasonable efforts to
resume care of the child despite being given the opportunity to do so. . . .
....
(h) The court finds that all of the following have occurred:
(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 months of the last twelve months, or for the
last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less
than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be
returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in section
232.102 at the present time.
....
(l) The court finds that all of the following have occurred:
(1) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance
pursuant to section 232.96 and custody has been transferred from the
child’s parents for placement pursuant to section 232.102.
(2) The parent has a severe substance-related disorder and
presents a danger to self or others as evidenced by prior acts.
(3) There is clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s
prognosis indicates that the child will not be able to be returned to the
custody of the parent within a reasonable period of time considering the
child’s age and need for a permanent home.
3
W.B. was born in September 2015. On December 2, 2016, the
department of human services (DHS) received allegations the father and mother
were using methamphetamine and marijuana while caring for W.B., they had
taken the child with them on drug deals, and they had physically assaulted each
other in the child’s presence. A child-abuse assessment was conducted. The
parents denied the allegations of drug use but their hair-stat tests were positive
for methamphetamine at very high levels. Due to the parents’ positive drug tests,
the mother’s erratic behavior, DHS’s inability to obtain the cooperation of the
parents to create a safety plan, and the family’s plans to leave the state without
participating in services, the court ordered the child’s removal.
On January 17, 2017, the juvenile court adjudicated W.B. a child in need
of assistance (CINA). The parents’ visits were to be supervised. The parents
were to cooperate with Family Safety, Risk, and Permanency Services and
random drug testing, participate in substance-abuse treatment, and obtain
employment and housing.
On April 13, both parents submitted urine samples that tested positive for
methamphetamine.
On April 24, the court entered a dispositional order that continued the
child’s out-of-home placement. The court observed the parents had not
consistently visited their child, continued to use illegal substances, and were not
willing to follow through with recommendations to address domestic violence in
their relationship. The parents did not have a stable address and were not
employed. Concerns were raised about the mother’s mental health but the
4
mother refused to obtain a mental-health evaluation. A permanency hearing was
originally scheduled for June 8 but was continued twice.
A July 6 report to the court noted the parents had been offered fifty-eight
supervised interactions between January and July—the parents attended only
thirteen.
A July 13 case progress report noted the parents completed substance-
abuse evaluations on February 21 but “have not followed through with the
recommendations of weekly individuals and groups. They have not attended.”
Both parents had been arrested and jailed on July 7 and were facing prosecution
on drug charges.
In August, the mother underwent another substance-abuse assessment.
The mother acknowledged use of methamphetamine and marijuana but indicated
she had not used illegal substances in the past thirty days (since being arrested).
She reported past treatment for psychological and emotional problems and
having recent suicidal thoughts. The mother also reported she was likely
pregnant. Extended outpatient services were recommended.
The permanency/termination trial was held on August 17. After the
hearing, the court terminated both parents’ rights. They each appeal. Both
parents assert the State has failed to prove grounds for termination exist.
At the time of termination, W.B. was under three years of age, had been
adjudicated a CINA, had been out of the parents’ custody for more than the
statutory six consecutive months, and could not be returned to the parents’ care
at that time without risk of harm. Thus, there is clear and convincing evidence to
support termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h).
5
While the parents both claimed very recent progress such as obtaining
employment, moving in with the mother’s mother, and being substance free for
the last thirty days, such last-minute efforts are too little, too late. See In re C.B.,
611 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 2000). There may be no greater challenge than to
parent a child, and we acknowledge there is no perfect parent. We do expect,
however, that a parent’s efforts exceed a meager or sporadic level of cooperation
with services and that progress will be sufficiently sustained to evoke confidence.
Unfortunately, sometimes a parent’s willingness and ability to cooperate and
progress are compromised by usage of drugs or alcohol, or both. Here, both
parents have faced difficulties in avoiding the use of drugs.
In light of the parents’ long-standing substance-abuse issues and
resistance to services and mental-health and substance-abuse treatment, thirty
days of sobriety is not enough to inspire optimism. At the hearing, the parents
asked for additional time, by which they impliedly acknowledged their efforts to
date were not sufficient to allow the return of the child to their care. The juvenile
court indicated that allowing additional time was inappropriate for these parents
because there had simply not been enough progress made that would warrant
another six-month delay in permanency for this child. We agree.
We find termination is warranted under section 232.116(1)(h), and
termination of the parents’ rights will best provide for the child’s stability and long-
term needs. Moreover, no permissive factor in section 232.116(3) is applicable
to avoid termination. We therefore affirm on both appeals.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.