IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14-0027

Filed April 30, 2014

IN THE INTEREST OF B.H., C.H., D.H., AND D.H.,

Minor Children,

C.H., Father,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld, 

District Associate Judge.

The father appeals the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights. 

AFFIRMED.

Cynthia S. Finley, Cedar Rapids, for appellant father.

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

Attorney General, Jerry Vander Sanden, County Attorney, and William C. 

Ostlund, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.

Julie Trachta, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor 

children.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
2

VOGEL, P.J.

The father appeals the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights to 

his children, B.H., C.H., D.H., and D.H. The father claims the State failed to 

prove by clear and convincing evidence grounds to terminate his parental rights 

under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (f), and (l) (2013). He further asserts he 

should have been granted an additional six months to correct to his substance 

abuse issues and that termination was not in the children’s best interest. Due to 

the father’s chronic substance abuse problem, his homelessness, and his 

inability to find or sustain employment, we conclude the State proved by clear 

and convincing evidence the father’s rights should be terminated pursuant to 

Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f). Moreover, granting additional time would not 

resolve the father’s issues, and termination is in the children’s best interest. 

Consequently, we affirm.1

B.H., born 1998, C.H., born 2000, D.H. and D.H., twins born in 2004, first 

came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) in 

November 2010. This was due to a founded child abuse assessment detailing 

how the father had assaulted the mother in front of the children, as well as how

the father forced C.H. and B.H. to blow into his breathalyzer so his car would 

start after he had been drinking. The children were adjudicated in need of 

assistance on January 14, 2011.

The children initially remained in the mother’s care. However, the mother 

left for Minnesota with the children, without DHS’s permission. She and the 

children resided in homes for victims of domestic violence for a period of time. 

 

1 The mother’s parental rights were also terminated; she does not appeal. 
3

The children were removed from the mother’s care and returned to Iowa on 

March 5, 2012, and were placed with the maternal grandparents. The children 

continue to reside with the grandparents.

The father was not able to obtain suitable housing for any significant 

length of time during the pendency of the proceeding. He rented an apartment 

for approximately six months in 2013, but was unable to pay the bills and moved 

out. At the time of the termination hearing, he was homeless and living with his 

mother. With regard to his employment situation, he testified he has “done work 

for people, whether it’s the construction-type stuff or painting or moving or 

whatever. Side income. But as far as being—having a job-job that I go to on a 

consistent basis, it’s been several years.” 

Additionally, the father continues to abuse drugs, including alcohol, 

cocaine, and methamphetamine. He completed several substance abuse 

treatment programs but has periodically relapsed. Though he refused almost all 

of the court-ordered drug tests, he wore a drug-detecting patch that tested 

positive for methamphetamine in August 2013.

2

 The father also has a criminal 

history including convictions for aggravated burglary, armed robbery, domestic 

abuse, theft, fugitive from justice, and OWIs.

The father consistently attended visitations and progressed from 

supervised to unsupervised visits. However, after his relapse in April 2013, the 

visits were reduced to a two-hour supervised visit each week. In spite of the 

father’s many problems, he and the children retain a good bond.

 

2 He wore a patch, but missed all weekly testing until August 2013.
4

The following services were provided during the pendency of the 

proceedings: family safety, risk, and permanency services; supervision and

services through DHS; substance abuse evaluations and treatment; drug testing;

supervised visitation; individual counseling; mental health treatment; access to 

the STEPPS program; domestic violence counseling; family team meetings; Linn 

County Home Health Services for extra visits; and Behavioral Health Integrative 

Services.

Despite the receipt of services, the father continued to remain homeless 

and abuse drugs. Consequently, the State petitioned for termination of his

parental rights on September 19, 2013. A hearing was held, and on December 

19, 2013, the court terminated the parental rights of both parents pursuant to 

Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (f), and (l). The father appeals.

We review termination proceedings de novo. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 

64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). The grounds for termination must be proved by clear 

and convincing evidence. Id. Our primary concern is the child’s best interest. Id. 

When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory 

ground, we only need find grounds to terminate under one of the sections cited 

by the juvenile court to affirm. Id. To terminate parental rights under paragraph 

(f), the State must prove the children are four years of age or older, they were 

adjudicated children in need of assistance, they have been removed from the 

parent’s care for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, and there is clear 

and convincing evidence the children cannot be returned to the parent’s care at 

the present time. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f).
5

In terminating the parental rights of the parents, the juvenile court stated 

the following:

Despite multiple services, including, but not limited to, substance 

abuse evaluations, substance abuse treatments and mental health 

counseling, the parents continued to struggle with the same issues. 

The parents have both completed multiple substance abuse 

treatment programs and continued to relapse. The parents have 

not complied with Court-ordered drug testing and have continued to 

abuse methamphetamine, cocaine, and alcohol. When they are 

together they use drugs. Both parents recently used together and 

tested positive for methamphetamine . . . . There continue to be 

concerns about domestic violence between them. They also have 

been chronically homeless. Neither one currently has a home 

where visits with the children can take place . . . . Additionally, they 

continue to be unemployed and unable to support themselves, 

much less the children. For these reasons, the children cannot be 

returned to their care without continuing to be children in need of 

assistance at this time or in the near future.

We agree with this assessment. The father testified he used both alcohol 

and methamphetamine in October 2013. His continual drug use, unemployment, 

domestic violence issues, and homelessness are strong indicators the children 

cannot presently be returned to his care. Consequently, the juvenile court 

correctly found the State proved by clear and convincing evidence grounds to 

terminate the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f).

Moreover, granting the father an additional six months would not resolve

this situation. He has been in substance abuse programs for years and has yet 

to maintain sobriety. He also cannot find a suitable home for himself or the 

children. In determining the future actions of the parent, his past conduct is 

instructive. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006). It is clear granting the 

father more time is not in the children’s best interest. “We have repeatedly 

followed the principle that the statutory time line must be followed and children 
6

should not be forced to wait for their parent to grow up.” In re N.F., 579, N.W.2d 

338, 341 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998); see also Iowa Code § 232.116(2). The children 

are placed with their maternal grandparents and are doing well. They also are in 

need of permanency. Therefore, termination of the father’s parental rights is in 

the children’s best interest, and we affirm the order of the juvenile court.

AFFIRMED.