IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1833
Filed May 13, 2020
IN THE INTEREST OF A.N.,
Minor Child,
J.N., Mother,
Appellant,
J.N., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Brendan Greiner,
District Associate Judge.
A mother and a father separately appeal the termination of their parental
rights to their child. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Jeremy M. Evans of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant
mother.
Thomas G. Crabb, Des Moines, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Yvonne C. Naanep, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
child.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Schumacher, JJ.
2
DOYLE, Judge.
A mother and a father each challenge the termination of their parental rights
to their child. Both contend the State failed to prove the grounds for termination
by clear and convincing evidence. The father also contends the State failed to
make reasonable efforts to return the child to his care. We review these claims de
novo. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018).
The child was removed from the mother’s care after testing positive for
methamphetamine at birth in August 2018. The child was first placed with the
father, who was quickly overwhelmed by the child’s needs and consented to the
child’s temporary removal less than two weeks later. The child was then placed
with the maternal grandmother, where the child remained. The juvenile court
adjudicated the child to be in need of assistance (CINA). When neither parent had
made progress after one year, the State filed a petition to terminate both parents’
rights to the child, which the juvenile court granted.
The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(h) and (l) (2019). We may affirm on either ground. See In re
A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). Termination under section 232.116(1)(h)
is appropriate if the child is three years old or younger, has been adjudicated CINA,
and has been removed from the parent’s care for at least six of the last twelve
months. There must also be clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot
be returned to the parent’s care at the time of the termination hearing without
exposing the child to harm that would lead to a new CINA adjudication. See Iowa
Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4) (requiring “clear and convincing evidence that at the
present time the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as
3
provided in section 232.102”); In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010)
(interpreting the term “at the present time” to mean “at the time of the termination
hearing”); In re M.S., 889 N.W.2d 675, 680 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (noting a child
cannot be returned to the custody of the parent if doing so would expose the child
to any harm amounting to a new CINA adjudication).
In the year following removal, the mother failed to do the minimum asked of
her. The juvenile court noted in its termination order that the mother’s participation
in the termination proceedings “was simply as a bystander in the court gallery.”
Her engagement with the services offered to her during the CINA proceedings
could be described similarly. The mother admitted to using methamphetamine
during her pregnancy and tested positive for methamphetamine the one time she
complied with testing during the CINA proceedings. Although she participated in
visitation with the child, there is no indication that she took any steps to address
her substance use. A parent’s active addiction to methamphetamine can harm a
child in the parent’s care. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 42 (Iowa 2014). Because
clear and convincing evidence shows that returning the child to the mother’s care
at the time of the termination hearing would expose the child to harm amounting
to a new CINA adjudication, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental
rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h).
The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(h). Clear and convincing evidence also shows the child would
be exposed to harm that would lead to a new CINA adjudication if placed in the
father’s care. The father has anger issues that led to the child’s removal in
September 2018. The father participated in only ten therapy sessions, and the
4
juvenile court observed that there is little information beyond that to show the father
has addressed his anger issues. The father showed he could meet the child’s
immediate needs, but concerns remained about his ability and interest in meeting
the child’s long-term needs. The father failed to take the initiative to follow through
with the overnight visits he was offered. And because the father only participated
in fully-supervised visits with the child, his ability to parent on his own remained
untested. We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(h).
The father also challenges the reasonable efforts made by the State to
return the child to his care. See Iowa Code § 232.102(7) (requiring that the State
“make every reasonable effort to return the child to the child’s home as quickly as
possible consistent with the best interests of the child”). He argues the DHS failed
to help him with transportation for additional visits with the child. But in order to
preserve error on a reasonable-efforts challenge, a parent must complain to the
juvenile court about the adequacy of the services “at the removal, when the case
permanency plan is entered, or at later review hearings.” In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d
144, 148 (Iowa 2002). “[V]oicing complaints regarding the adequacy of services
to a social worker is not sufficient.” Id. The father never made a formal request
for additional services to the juvenile court. He therefore failed to preserve the
issue for our review.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.