IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 16-0157

Filed April 6, 2016

IN THE INTEREST OF K.M., K.M., K.M., K.M. and K.M,

Minor Children,

E.M., Father,

Appellant,

A.M., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District 

Associate Judge.

A father and mother separately appeal the termination of their parental 

rights to five children. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

Karen A. Taylor of Taylor Law Offices, Des Moines, for appellant father.

Sarah E. Dewein of Cunningham & Kelso, P.L.L.C., Urbandale, for 

appellant mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Erin E. Mayfield of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, for minor children.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2

BOWER, Judge.

A father and mother separately appeal the termination of their parental 

rights to five children. The mother and father both claim the juvenile court erred 

in terminating their parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) 

and (h) (2015) and termination was not in the children’s best interests. We affirm 

the juvenile court’s order. 

We review de novo proceedings terminating parental rights. See In re 

A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). The three-step statutory framework 

governing the termination of parental rights is well established and need not be 

repeated herein. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). The juvenile 

court issued a thorough and well-reasoned order terminating the mother’s and 

father’s parental rights; we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as 

our own.

The juvenile court terminated the mother’s and father’s parental rights

pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (h). Iowa Code section 

232.116(1)(f) and (h) contain similar elements, though section (f) applies to 

children four years of age or older who have been removed from their parents’

physical custody for twelve of the past eighteen months, “or for the last twelve 

consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days.” 

Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f)(1), (3). Section (h) applies to children three years of 

age or younger who have been removed from their parents’ physical custody for 

at least six of the last twelve months, “or for the last six consecutive months and 

any trial period at home has been less than thirty days.” Iowa Code 

§ 232.116(1)(h)(1), (3). Otherwise, both sections require a showing the children
3

have been adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA), and “there is clear 

and convincing evidence that at the present time the child[ren] cannot be 

returned to the custody of the child[ren]’s parents as provided in section 

232.102.” See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f), (h).

The father and mother challenge the fourth ground claiming there was not 

clear and convincing evidence the children could not be returned to their custody

at the time of the termination hearing. Concerning the mother’s and father’s 

ability to accept custody of the children at the time of the hearing, the court 

observed:

[The mother] is addicted to methamphetamines. The 

addiction started when she was 21 years old.[1][The mother]

admitted to using meth two weeks, before the termination trial.

. . . . 

Before May, 2015, [the mother] and [the father] had 

supervised visits with the children together. In May, 2015, when 

[the father] was again charged with assaulting [the mother], the 

parents had separate visits. [The mother] was provided a 

supervised visit for one hour per week with [the youngest child] and 

two hours per week with all the children together. At [the mother]’s 

request, the visits were combined to a single three hour visit per 

week with all the children. During visits, [the mother] “struggles 

with parenting her children. Her visits are chaotic and the children 

do not listen to her.” The FSRP [(Family Safety, Risk, and 

Permanency)] worker describes [the mother] at visits as “very 

agitated,” “frustrated easily” and having a “hard time following 

through with consequences when the children do not listen.” At

times the FSRP worker has to intervene and help with the children. 

[The mother] repeatedly runs out of things to do with the children 

and therefore ends the visit early.

The Court knows that [the mother] loves her children. [The 

mother] acknowledges that the children cannot currently live with 

her.

. . . . 

[The father] is addicted to methamphetamines. He started 

using in his early 20’s.

[2]

[The father] admits that he used meth in 

 

1 The mother was thirty-one years old at the time of the termination hearing.

2 The father was thirty-seven years old at the time of the termination hearing.
4

January 2015. He denies that he has continued to use. . . . [The 

father] has a criminal history involving substance abuse. He has a 

pending OWI from September, 2015. The charge claims that [the 

father] was intoxicated and driving [the mother]. 

. . . .

The Court is extremely concerned that [the father]’s therapy 

is merely addressing superficial topics, in a superficial manner. 

[The father] did not talk with his therapist about his newest arrest in 

May 2015, for assaulting [the mother]. Instead, [the father] told his 

therapist that he wanted less frequent therapy, every 3-4 weeks, so 

he could have more to talk about. 

[The father] interacts well with the children during visits, 

when he appears. The Court is extremely concerned that he 

missed three out of eight visits in October/November—the last 

reporting periods before the Termination of Parental Rights Trial.

Also, when DHS offered [the father] an additional weekly one hour 

visit with [the youngest child], [the father] said no to extra time with 

his son. (emphasis added).

The Court knows that [the father] loves his children. [The 

father] acknowledges that the children cannot currently live with 

him.

Due to the parents’ ongoing substance abuse and mental health issues, 

their inability to progress past supervised visits, the father’s past domestic 

assaults of the mother, and their professed inability to have the children

immediately reside with them, we find the juvenile court properly terminated their 

parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (h).

The parents also claim termination of their parental rights is not in the best 

interests of the children. Even if a statutory ground for termination is met, a 

decision to terminate must still be in the best interests of the children after a 

review of section 232.116(2). P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 37. In determining the best 

interests of the children, we give primary consideration to “the child[ren’s] safety, 

to the best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of the 

child[ren], and to the physical, mental, and emotional conditions and needs of the 
5

child[ren].” See Iowa Code § 232.116(2). On this point the juvenile court 

reasoned:

The parents have deep, unresolved substance abuse 

problems. Both continue to test positive for methamphetamine use 

and choose to consume alcohol. [The father] has a pending OWI, 

which occurred while he was driving [the mother]. She has smelled 

of alcohol when visiting the children.

[The father] has failed to safely address his domestic 

violence history. In 2014, [the father] pled guilty to threatening to 

light [the mother] on fire and assaulting her. He has sporadically 

attended superficial counseling but not addressed the underlying 

reasons he continues to assault the children’s mother. Despite 

attending counseling, in May, 2015, [the father] was again charged 

with assaulting [the mother]. [The father] failed to discuss this 

charge with his long term counselor. Instead, he asked for less 

frequent visits with his counselor—every 3 to 4 weeks—so they 

would have more to talk about.

We agree with the juvenile court that termination is in the best interests of 

the children and affirm the juvenile court’s order. 

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.