IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1143
Filed August 31, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF D.J. and D.J.,
Minor Children,
K.B., Mother,
Appellant,
C.J., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P.
Strausser, District Associate Judge.
A mother and father appeal separately from the order terminating their
parental rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Esther J. Dean, Muscatine, for appellant mother.
Don W. Schroeder of Schroeder Law Firm, P.L.C., West Liberty, for
appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd and
Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee State.
Christine E. Boyer, Iowa City, for minor children.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the order terminating their parental
rights. We find there is sufficient evidence to support the terminations. We also
find termination is in the best interests of the children and no exception to
termination is appropriate. We affirm the decision of the juvenile court on both
appeals.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
D.J. and D.J., born in 2007, are twins and the children of mother K.B. and
father C.J. While living with their father, the children came to the attention of the
Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) in April 2013 due to lack of
supervision, and voluntary services began. A fire destroyed the father’s home,
and the children were moved to their mother’s care in August. There were
concerns regarding drug use with both parents.
In November, the children, along with two half-siblings, were adjudicated
to be in need of assistance, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n)
(2013).1 The children were removed from the mother’s care the next day. Their
father was in jail at the time, and the children were placed with relatives. In
January 2014, the children were placed with their father. The father’s significant
history of substance abuse warranted consistent and careful monitoring by DHS
to prevent harm to the children.
1
The basis for the adjudication was failure to provide appropriate supervision by the
children’s mother as well as evidence of domestic abuse between the mother and her
boyfriend and previously between the mother and the children’s father.
3
Between the January 2014 hearing and the first termination hearing held
in February 2016,2 both parents had been incarcerated for substantial periods of
time, relapsed on using methamphetamine, had multiple warrants for their arrest,
and missed hearings related to the children. In addition to the parents, the
children were placed with a series of relatives and finally a foster family. After
receiving methamphetamine from the children’s father, the mother tested positive
in October 2015. The mother also tested positive for amphetamine and
methamphetamine as recently as March 2016, during the series of termination
hearings. Concerning his own drug use, the father testified he could not
remember large parts of 2015 due to being heavily intoxicated on
methamphetamine, including times he visited the children.
The juvenile court entered an order on June 23, 2016, terminating the
mother’s parental rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(f), (g), (l) (2015). The
father’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to section 232.116(1)(e), (f), (l).
The mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights separately.
II. Standard of Review
The scope of review in termination cases is de novo. In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). Clear and convincing evidence is needed to
establish the grounds for termination. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa
2006). Where there is clear and convincing evidence, there is no serious or
substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusion drawn from the
evidence. In re D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359, 361 (Iowa 2002). The paramount
2
The termination hearing was held over several days in order to allow both parents to
present additional evidence and for the results of a home study. The dates of the
hearings were February 10 and 11, March 17, and April 11, 2016.
4
concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the children. In re
L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 1990).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Both the mother and father claim there is insufficient evidence in the
record to support termination of their parental rights. “When the juvenile court
orders termination of parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we need
only find grounds to terminate on one of the sections to affirm.” In re T.S., 868
N.W.2d 425, 435 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015).
Both parents contest only the fourth requirement of section 232.116(1)(f):
the children cannot be returned to the parents’ custody as provided in section
232.102. A child may be removed from their home under section
232.102(5)(a)(2) if “[t]he child cannot be protected from some harm which would
justify the adjudication of the child as a child in need of assistance.” Here, the
children were originally adjudicated to be in need of assistance due to lack of
supervision caused by their parents’ use of methamphetamine and other
controlled substances. The mother continued to struggle with issues of
substance abuse up to and including the time of the termination hearings. We
agree with the juvenile court the father’s history “demonstrates that the only time
he is able to maintain sobriety is when he is in custody.” Therefore, we conclude
there is clear and convincing evidence to show the children could not safely be
returned to either parent. The juvenile court properly terminated the mother’s
and father’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f).
5
IV. Exceptions
The parents claim the juvenile court should not have terminated their
parental rights and instead should have placed the children with a relative. The
juvenile court entered an order on June 24, 2016, in which it “rejected [potential
relative placements] as not in the best interest of the children.” While some
relatives were willing to take the children, in the past, these placements had been
terminated early or been refused. We determine the juvenile court properly
found placement with a relative was not in the best interests of the children.
The father additionally claims termination is not in the children’s best
interests based on the closeness of the parent-child bond found in section
232.116(3)(c). The record does show the children are closely bonded with the
father. However, the record does not provide clear and convincing evidence that
termination would be detrimental to the children. On the contrary, the record
shows terminating parental rights will begin to provide stability and normalcy in
the children’s lives. We find the juvenile court properly refused to apply this
exception.
Finally, the mother claims an extension of time should have been granted
to allow her to work toward reunification. We find the children have not had a
stable living situation since at least November 2013. We will not ask these
children to continue to wait for a biological parent to be stable enough to care for
them, especially when the children are of tender age. See D.W., 791 N.W.2d at
707.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
In the Interest of D.J. and D.J., Minor Children, K.B., Mother, C.J., Father
Combined Opinion