IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1124
Filed September 13, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF M.M.,
Minor Child,
M.K., Father,
Appellant,
T.M., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour,
District Associate Judge.
Parents appeal the termination of their parental rights. AFFIRMED ON
BOTH APPEALS.
Karmen R. Anderson of The Law Office of Karmen Anderson, Des
Moines, for appellant father.
Shane P. O’Toole of Law Office Shane P. O’Toole, Des Moines, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Charles K. Phillips, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Nicole Garbis Nolan of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, guardian ad litem
for minor child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2
DOYLE, Judge.
“On February 6, 2016, the mother of M.M., born in late 2014, left the child
with his father, stating she would return the next day for M.M. She did not.” See
In re M.M., No. 16-1685, 2016 WL 7395788, at *1 (Iowa App. Dec. 21, 2016)
(affirming the juvenile court’s order placing the child in the care of other suitable
persons, following an appeal by the State). The father contacted the Iowa
Department of Human Services (DHS) four months later and stated “he ‘did not
care to keep the child.’” Id. The father was “stressed by [the child’s] behaviors
and had concerns that [the child] was not actually his biological son.” “The father
met with a DHS child protective worker the next day, gave the worker the
mother’s contact information, and left M.M. in the care of the DHS.” Id.
The child’s therapist reported that since being left in the care of the DHS,
the child had
lived in [three] different foster homes. He was first placed with his
mother’s sister and then with his mother’s cousin. He lived at each
placement for about a month and a half. It was reported that the
removal from aunt and cousin was voluntary, and they reported
they could not handle [the child’s] behaviors. . . . [The child] has
been living in a non-kinship care foster placement since
[September 2016]. [The child’s foster] mother reports that [the
child] used to panic when the worker picked him up for visits, but he
has been doing better. [The child] also has some problems with
anger, and his foster mother reports that she does not think [the
child] knows what to do when he gets mad. She believes that [the
child] gets frustrated because he cannot communicate his needs.
[The child’s] speech is delayed, and he does not yet use words to
communicate. He still babbles as his main form of communication.
Foster mom reports that she is working on baby sign language with
him on her own to help him communicate. There are concerns
about [the child’s] attachment since he has changed placements so
often and has had several caregivers.
3
Services were offered to the parents for reunification; the mother did not
participate. The father, though he participated in visits with the child and some of
the child’s therapy sessions, did not seem to truly understand why the DHS
continued to be involved in his life. Although he was the one to leave the child
with the DHS, he believed the child’s attachment issues were caused by the
DHS. He did not believe the child needed therapy or had any behavioral issues.
Due to the parents’ lack of participation and progress, the State sought
termination of the parents’ parental rights. A termination-of-parental-rights
hearing was held in April 2017. Thereafter, the juvenile court, utilizing the
statutory framework of Iowa Code chapter 232 (2017), issued a thorough order
determining the parents’ parental rights should be terminated. See In re M.W.,
876 N.W.2d 212, 219-20 (Iowa 2016) (discussing the three-step analysis the
juvenile court must employ in termination-of-parental-rights proceedings). The
court found the State established the ground for termination under section
232.116(1)(h) as to both parents by clear and convincing evidence, summarizing:
Despite the extensive services offered, neither parent has corrected
the situation which led to the removal and subsequent adjudication.
The court notes this case is unusual and the parenting deficiencies
are not as obvious as a parent who repeatedly tests positive for
methamphetamine; however, the lifelong impact and consequences
of their parenting deficiencies are no less serious and likely more
difficult to remedy. The child’s therapist has indicated the child’s
inability to form healthy attachment is directly attributable to
parenting by the father and the mother. Both parents have failed to
take any accountability for the impact their inadequate parenting
has caused this child. Neither parent has demonstrated an interest
in understanding the child’s emotional needs or his need for
stability or consistency. The father has clearly stated he would not
have the child continue to engage in therapy if the child was in his
care. The mother has never even made the effort to contact the
child’s therapist. The child’s therapist indicated it is crucial for the
child to have a stable environment and the longer permanency is
4
delayed the harder it will be for him to form healthy attachments,
both now and later in life. The child in interest cannot be returned
to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in Iowa Code
section 232.102 at the present time due to the parents’ inability or
unwillingness to understand and provide for the child’s basic needs
for a nurturing, stable and safe home.
The juvenile court also determined the best-interest framework as laid out in
section 232.116(2) supported the termination of the parents’ parental rights:
Unfortunately, the safety concerns that led to removal continue to
exist today as neither parent has taken accountability for their
parenting deficiencies which have resulted in this child being
unable to form healthy attachments. His behaviors can be so
extreme that two different families gave notice they were unable to
continue to care for him. Yet the father blames those behaviors on
the DHS brainwashing the child or him being tortured in his current
home. The mother has not participated in any services
recommended. The father has only participated in visitation, after
paternity results were learned, and child-parent psychotherapy
which he does not believe is needed and has failed to attend for the
last month. The parents’ lack of meaningful participation in
services, including the child’s services, shows an inability or
unwillingness to make necessary changes to have the child placed
in their care. Case law directs us a child’s future can be gleaned
from evidence of a parent’s past performance and motivations.
Finally, the court found that none of the exceptions in section 232.116(3) applied
to preclude termination of the parents’ parental rights.
Both parents appeal. Upon our de novo review of the record, we find the
juvenile court considered all issues now presented on appeal, and this court
approves of the court’s reasons and conclusions contained in the order
terminating the parents’ parental rights. See M.W., 876 N.W.2d at 219; see also
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014) (“We are not bound by the juvenile
court’s findings of fact, but we do give them weight, especially in assessing the
5
credibility of witnesses.”). Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s order
without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (d), (e).
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.