IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1131
Filed December 5, 2018
IN THE INTEREST OF M.C.,
Minor Child,
D.Z., Mother,
Appellant,
N.C., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District
Associate Judge.
A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their
minor child. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Daniel M. Northfield, Urbandale, for appellant mother.
Amy K. Davis, Des Moines, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Erin E. Mayfield of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for
minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Judge.
A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their
child, born in 2014. Both parents argue termination is not in the child’s best
interests. See In re L.M., 904 N.W.2d 835, 840 (Iowa 2018). On our de novo
review, we disagree.
The department of human services removed the child from the parents’ care
following mutual domestic violence and parental use of methamphetamine. The
department issued two founded child-abuse reports determining both parents
failed to properly supervise the child. In one of the reports, the department also
found the presence of illegal drugs in the child. The child remained out of the
parents’ care throughout the proceedings, with the parents never progressing
beyond supervised visits.
The State’s petition to terminate parental rights proceeded to a lengthy
hearing over multiple days. Both parents essentially conceded the child could not
be returned to their custody at the time of the hearing. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)(h) (2018). The mother agreed she was using methamphetamine at
the time of removal and she last used the drug a week before the hearing. She
further agreed the department offered substance-abuse treatment services,
including intensive outpatient treatment and she was on the waiting list for inpatient
treatment. The father similarly testified “drug addiction” and “domestic violence”
precipitated the child’s removal, he was a drug addict, and his most recent drug of
choice was methamphetamine. Although he testified to a year of sobriety, a urine
sample he provided was diluted and urine cleanser was found in his apartment.
3
The department social worker assigned to the case conceded the parents
shared a strong bond with their child. But she reported neither had “gained the
insight needed for [the child] to be safely returned to their care today” and they
would not likely “be at a place of reunification within the next six months given the
lack of follow through thus far.”
We agree with the district court that termination is in the child’s best
interests.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.