IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1059
Filed September 12, 2018
IN THE INTEREST OF B.C.,
Minor Child,
S.C.,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Decatur County, Monty W. Franklin,
District Associate Judge.
The father appeals from the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Adam E. Kehrwald of Kehrwald Law Firm, Des Moines, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Shireen L. Carter of Shireen Carter Law Office, PLC, Norwalk, guardian ad
litem for minor child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.
2
DANILSON, Chief Judge.
The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to B.C., born in
2011.1 The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (f) (2018). It also found termination was in the
child’s best interests. When the juvenile court finds more than one ground for
termination under section 232.116(1), “we may affirm . . . on any ground we find
supported by the record.” In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). Upon our
de novo review, see In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018), we find clear
and convincing evidence supports termination under section 232.116(1)(f). We,
therefore, affirm.
We first note the child was involved with juvenile court child-in-need-of-
assistance (CINA) proceedings before, from August 2013 to December 2014, as
a result of parental substance abuse and safety concerns resulting from
inadequate parental supervision. That case was closed, and the child was placed
in his father’s custody.
The child came to the attention of the department of human services (DHS)
again in February 2016 when law enforcement executed a search warrant at the
father’s residence where B.C. and his fifteen-year-old brother resided with the
father. The children did not know where the father was or how to contact him.
During the search, law enforcement found methamphetamine, marijuana, drug
paraphernalia (pipes and needles), and homemade alcohol, along with numerous
items of stolen property in the home. A founded child protective assessment was
1
The mother’s parental rights were also terminated. She does not appeal.
3
made for denial of critical care, failure to provide proper supervision, with the father
as the responsible party.
A CINA petition was filed and, initially, B.C. was allowed to remain in the
father’s physical custody. The father was to cooperate with services, including
substance-abuse and mental-health evaluations and treatment services; parent-
skill development; Family Safety, Risk, and Permanency (FSRP) services; drug
testing; and case management services. However, on November 4, 2016, the
father was arrested and incarcerated for additional criminal charges. The child
lived with two different relatives before being placed with a foster family on April
24, 2017, where he remained throughout the termination proceedings.
Under section 232.116(1)(f), the court may terminate parental rights if a
child four years or older has been adjudicated a CINA, has been removed from the
physical custody of the parent for at least twelve of the last eighteen months or the
last twelve consecutive months, and cannot be returned to the parent’s custody at
the present time. There is no question the child is older than four years of age,
was adjudicated a CINA on June 21, 2016, and has been removed from the father’s
custody for more than twelve consecutive months. The father argues, however,
he can care for his child at present because he has graduated from the Salvation
Army program, is living with his parents, and can obtain employment in the near
future.
We agree with the trial court that the child cannot be returned to the father
at present without risk of adjudicatory harm. We adopt the following findings and
conclusions of the court:
4
[The father] sporadically participated in outpatient substance
abuse treatment and did provide negative samples for two drug tests.
A drug test on February 17, 2017, was not valid as the temperature
of the urine sample was “off” and when required to retest on February
24, 2017, [the father] was unable to provide a urine sample for
testing. At his sentencing proceeding held on April 14, 2017, when
[the father] was sent to prison, [the father] admitted that he would
likely test positive for both marijuana and methamphetamines if he
were to be tested on that day. Following his release from prison in
August of 2017, [the father] attended a few sessions of substance
abuse treatment until he was arrested on additional new charges in
October 2017. During this time period he did not test positive for
controlled substances but did test positive for using alcohol. Since
November 6, 2017, until recently, [the father] has been residing in a
community-based correctional residential program at the Salvation
Army Rehabilitation Center . . . as a requirement to continue his
parole and avoid revocation of parole and return to prison. He has
participated in substance abuse education and relapse prevention
programming at this facility and has passed all required drug testing.
[The father] failed to obtain a mental health evaluation until
December 2016 following [B.C.]’s removal from his custody. He
reported to DHS that the evaluation did not recommend any
treatment services, but DHS was never provided with a copy of the
evaluation and was not able to verify that additional mental health
services were not recommended for him. In October 2017, following
additional concerns and numerous additional criminal charges, [the
father] was required to obtain a new mental health evaluation, but he
failed to do so, and since [B.C.]’s adjudication as a CINA in June of
2016, he has not participated in any mental health treatment services
other than possibly the initial evaluation he indicates was completed
in December 2016.
The father’s contact with the DHS and the child has been adversely affected
by his criminal proceedings and sentences as noted by the juvenile court:
[The father]’s contact with the DHS case manager and with
the FSRP provider has been sporadic from the time of [B.C.]’s
removal until [the father] was sentenced to prison in April 2017. After
he was released on parole, [the father] resumed his limited contact
with DHS and the FSRP provider until he was again arrested in
October 2017 when all contact with them ceased. Since October
2017 [the father] has had no contact with DHS or with the FSRP
provider other than during the court hearing held February 19, 2018,
and at a Foster Care Review Board meeting held April 4, 2018.
Initially, [B.C.] was allowed to remain in [the father]’s custody
following his adjudication and until [the father] was re-arrested on
5
new criminal charges on November 4, 2016. Thereafter, until he was
sent to prison on April 14, 2017, [the father]’s visits or contacts with
[B.C.] were to be supervised, primarily by his cousin . . . with whom
[B.C.] was living from December 1, 2016, until April 24, 2017. After
[the father]’s sentencing, it was discovered that [the father] and [his
cousin] were ignoring the supervision requirement for visits as
required by DHS and the court’s order and [the father] was having
unsupervised contact with [B.C.] whenever he wanted. This resulted
in [B.C.]’s placement in family foster care on April 24, 2017.
[The father]’s last face-to face contact or visit with [B.C.] was
at his sentencing on April 14, 2017. Following [the father] being sent
to prison, [B.C.]’s therapist recommended that visitations be limited
to letters and telephone calls. No such communication took place
until [the father] was paroled and not in custody during September
and October 2017 when there were approximately three letters and
telephone calls between [the father] and [B.C.] made in a therapeutic
setting. After [the father] was once again arrested in October 2017,
the letters and telephone calls ceased; and at the permanency
review hearing held October 30, 2017, when [B.C.]’s permanency
goal was changed by the court to termination of parental rights, the
court ordered that visitation with both parents be suspended until
[B.C.]’s therapist recommended that visits be recommenced. To
date, [B.C.]’s therapist has not made a recommendation that
visitation or any contact between [B.C.] and his parents should take
place. [The father], therefore, has had no contact of any nature with
[B.C.] since October 2017 (six months), and except for approximately
three letters and telephone calls, [the father] has had no contact with
[B.C.] since April 14, 2017 (twelve months).
Most recently, the father has completed the Salvation Army program, but
significant issues remain as noted by the juvenile court:
After sixteen months of noncompliance with services, [the
father] recently completed the Salvation Army program under the
threat of having his parole revoked and being returned to prison.
Although this program apparently has components for drug
education, relapse prevention, and AA/NA meetings, it does not
appear to be an accredited substance abuse treatment program.
Therefore, there is still some question as to whether or not [the
father] has appropriately addressed his substance abuse problem.
Also, there does not appear to be any mental health treatment
service component to this program, so [the father] still has not yet
appropriately addressed his mental health concerns. There is also
no indication that this program provides any parent-skill development
programming so that concern has also not yet been addressed by
[the father].
6
Parent-skill development is especially important for [the
father] as he has never given any indication that he recognizes or in
any way appreciates the adverse effects that his chaotic, unstable,
and criminal lifestyle has had on his children. For example, [the
father] showed no hesitation in attempting to blame his fifteen year
old son . . . for the contraband discovered in the home at the
beginning of the CINA proceeding. He likewise had no qualms about
having his then five-year-old son [B.C.] be present for his felony
sentencing proceeding and even having [B.C.] sit on his lap at the
counsel table during the sentencing hearing. As recently as
September and October of 2017, [the father] still did not accept any
responsibility for any of the impact or consequences that his actions
and choices have caused to his children. . . .
[The father] graduated from the Salvation Army program on
April 15, 2018, the day before the termination hearing. He testified
that he is living in the basement of his parents’ house as his house
burnt down under suspicious circumstances currently being
investigated by the State Fire Marshall’s Office. Also living in the
home with [the father] and his parents are a nephew and his
girlfriend. He does not have a regular job or income but believes that
he can work doing odd jobs while he looks for regular employment.
He does not have a driver’s license. He has a girlfriend who may
also be on probation or parole who is pregnant with his child. He
remains on parole and has a pending assault charge which, if he is
convicted, may have an adverse impact on his parole status.
[The father] has yet to demonstrate that he can live a normal
and regular life outside of a highly structured and completely
supervised living situation. The last time he tried to do so was when
he was released from prison on parole in 2017, and he was only able
to last a couple of months before he was facing parole revocation
proceedings.
We also agree that the child’s best interests lie in the termination of the
father’s parental rights and adoption. As found by the juvenile court,
[B.C.] has greatly benefited from the stability and structure being
provided to him by the foster home and he continues to thrive in this
nurturing environment. He is entitled and deserves to continue to
receive the benefits currently being provided to him in the foster
home and which were not and would not be available to him in the
home of either parent where instability, dysfunction, and uncertainty
prevail.
7
Because there is clear and convincing evidence to support termination and
termination is in the child’s best interest, we affirm the termination of the father’s
parental rights.
AFFIRMED.