IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-0001
Filed March 6, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF T.M.,
Minor Child,
C.M., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District
Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Shireen L. Carter of Shireen Carter Law Office, PLC, Norwalk, for appellant
father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Meredith L. Lamberti, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Kimberly Ayotte of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, attorney and guardian
ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
A father appeals a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights. The
father claims the State did not prove a ground for termination, an exception to
termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(3) (2018) applies, and termination
is not in the child’s best interest. We find the State established a ground for
termination by clear and convincing evidence, no exception to termination applies,
and termination is in the child’s best interest.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
C.M. is the father of T.M., born in 2010.1 On April 25, 2018, T.M. was
removed from the father’s care due to the father’s substance abuse while caring
for the child. The child had been removed twice before and was adjudicated a
child in need of assistance (CINA) from 2011-2013 and 2016-2017. Each time,
the father participated in treatment programs and T.M. was returned to his care.
The father’s rights were terminated to a child before T.M. was born and another
child was placed with the child’s mother in a different state during the 2016 CINA
case.
The father relapsed on methamphetamine in the summer of 2017 shortly
after the second CINA case concluded and continued using illegal substances
through the time of removal. In November 2017, the father placed the child in the
care of an ex-paramour, the mother of one of T.M.’s younger siblings. In early April
2018, the father moved T.M. to the care of a cousin who had been a placement for
1
The mother’s parental rights were terminated in 2013.
3
T.M. in 2016. On May 23, the father stipulated to a CINA adjudication and
placement of the child with the cousin.
In June 2018, the father admitted to using methamphetamine and marijuana
multiple times a day as well as the occasional use of cocaine since July 2017. At
hearings in May, June, and September, the father reported ceasing use of illegal
substances, recently completing substance-abuse evaluations, and making plans
to enter treatment. He never took any action to begin a substance-abuse-
treatment program, refused drug testing in September, and did not engage in
recommended mental-health therapy.
In September, the father’s current paramour and their new baby both tested
positive for opiates. The baby and the paramour’s older child were removed from
the home due to the substance abuse of both parents. The father and his
paramour attempted to sign up for outpatient treatment on December 4, but current
evaluations had not been provided to the treatment center.
The court held a termination hearing on December 5. The court heard
testimony from the father and the social worker. At the hearing, the father testified
he had not been using drugs at the time of the removal and lied on his evaluations
to get into treatment. He repeatedly said he was unsure of the last day he used
any illegal substance. The father demonstrated a lack of awareness of the effects
of his drug usage resulting in removal; he claimed he has not put the child in danger
and has been a positive parent while using drugs. He testified he was now willing
to participate in the requested services because he realized the child might not
return to his care. The social worker, who had worked with the family through the
2016-2017 CINA case as well, testified the father’s actions showed an
4
unwillingness to make permanent changes and resistance to any direction offered
by DHS. Both the father and social worker testified the father and child love each
other. The child’s guardian ad litem recommended termination as in the child’s
best interest.
On December 18, the court terminated the father’s rights to T.M. pursuant
to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g). The father appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We review termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo. In re A.B., 815
N.W.2d 764, 773 (Iowa 2012). “There must be clear and convincing evidence of
the grounds for termination of parental rights.” In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219
(Iowa 2016). “Clear and convincing” evidence means there are “no serious or
substantial doubts as to the correctness or conclusions of law drawn from the
evidence.” In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010) (citation omitted). The
paramount concern in termination proceedings is the best interest of the child. In
re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006). “We give weight to the juvenile court’s
factual findings, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but we
are not bound by them.” In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 745 (Iowa 2011).
III. Analysis
The court terminated the father’s rights under Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(g). Under that provision, the State must show the child has been
adjudicated CINA, the parent’s rights have been terminated as to another child,
clear and convincing evidence shows the parent is unable or unwilling to respond
to services to correct the situation, and an additional period of rehabilitation would
not correct the situation. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(g). The child was adjudicated
5
CINA in May 2018, and the father’s rights to another child had been terminated in
2003.
The father challenges the third and fourth elements. He contends he is
willing and able to attend substance-abuse treatment and has been attending
twelve-step meetings. On this point, we find the father’s testimony more revealing
than his claims on appeal. He testified DHS’s requests he attend treatment and
take drug tests were “unreasonable” and he hates being told what to do. He failed
to recognize his addiction had caused any harm or risk to the child and refused to
take any responsibility for the removal and CINA adjudication. He relapsed the
weekend after the last CINA case and sent the child to live with others. We agree
with the district court that the father’s rejection of treatment offered, his history of
relapse, and his professed belief he has no need for substance-abuse treatment
provide clear and convincing evidence he is unable or unwilling to respond to
services to correct the problem. Moreover, his unwillingness to admit his
substance addiction is a problem and belief he provides positive parenting care
while under the influence of illegal substances are not issues that can be remedied
by mere time when the father shows no sincere desire to change. We find clear
and convincing evidence supports the termination of the father’s parental rights.
The court need not terminate a parent’s rights if any of the exceptions found
under Iowa Code section 232.116(3) apply. The father claims because the child
is in a relative’s custody the court should instead establish a guardianship rather
than terminate. “[A] guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative to
termination.” In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 477 (Iowa 2018) (citation omitted).
Indeed, no mention of guardianship has been raised prior to this appeal. We find
6
a guardianship would unnecessarily prolong the uncertainty that has been part of
the child’s entire life. “Children simply cannot wait for responsible
parenting. . . . [Parenting] must be constant, responsible, and reliable.” In re L.L.,
459 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 1990). A guardianship is not appropriate in this case
and the relative placement is not a sufficient reason for this court to further delay
permanency in the child’s life. No exception to termination applies in this case.
Finally, the father claims termination of his rights is not in the child’s best
interest. The father states he is able to provide financially for the child and loves
and cares for the child. “In considering whether to terminate, ‘the court shall give
primary consideration to the child’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the
long-term nurturing and growth of the child, and to the physical, mental, and
emotional condition and needs of the child.’” In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa
2010) (quoting Iowa Code § 232.116(2)). The court also considers the bond
between the parent and child. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). We will not deprive
the child of permanency based on the hope someday the father will learn to parent
and provide a stable home for the child. In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa
2014). “It is simply not in the best interests of the children to keep them in
temporary foster homes while the natural parents get their lives together.” A.B.,
815 N.W.2d at 778 (citation omitted).
While the father and child love each other, we find termination will promote
safety and stability for the child and provide the best placement for the child’s long-
term growth. The child has been in different schools each year while in the father’s
care. The father leaves the child in the care of others for months at a time while
he relapses. The father does not recognize why he should not be under the
7
influence of drugs when caring for children and sees any suggestions to improve
his parenting as controlling and unreasonable demands by the State. The child
has been adjudicated CINA three times and lived in multiple placements, and the
father refuses to recognize his actions resulted in removal. The child deserves a
safe, stable home free of controlled substances where his mental and emotional
needs can be addressed as well as his financial and physical needs. We find
termination of the father’s rights to be in the child’s best interest.
AFFIRMED.
In the Interest of T.M., Minor Child
Combined Opinion