IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-0883

Filed September 13, 2017

IN THE INTEREST OF E.T., J.T., B.G., and M.E.,

Minor Children

E.T., Father

Appellant,

D.L.-T., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joseph W. Seidlin, 

District Associate Judge.

A father and mother appeal separately from the order terminating their 

parental rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

John C. Heinicke of Kragnes & Associates, P.C., Des Moines, for 

appellant father of E.T. and J.T.

Colin R. McCormack of Van Cleaf and McCormack, Des Moines, for 

appellant mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Gretchen White Kraemer, 

Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.

John P. Jellineck, Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, for minor 

children.

Nicole Garbis Nolan and Charles Fuson of the Youth Law Center, Des 

Moines, guardians ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2

BOWER, Judge.

A father and mother appeal separately from the order terminating their 

parental rights.1 We find sufficient evidence to support the termination of both 

the mother’s and father’s rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and 

(h) (2017). We also find no exceptions to termination apply and termination is in 

the best interests of the children. We affirm the juvenile court.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

The four children came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human 

Services (DHS) when J.T. tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. Both 

the mother and father denied use of methamphetamines, though both had 

multiple drug tests return positive. The four children were found to be children in 

need of assistance and removed from the parents’ care. During the CINA action 

the juvenile court found the parents were offered reasonable efforts to work 

toward reunification. The permanency plan adopted by the juvenile court 

required the parents to address their substance-abuse, mental-health, housing, 

and domestic-violence issues.

The mother successfully completed outpatient substance abuse treatment 

but then once again tested positive for methamphetamine use. The father was 

unsuccessfully discharged, tested positive for methamphetamine use, and failed 

to complete a relapse prevention program. Neither parent reentered treatment. 

The mother claims her positive drug tests were caused by allergy medication, but 

she is unable to provide evidence to demonstrate this and has not stopped taking 

 

1 Only the father of E.T. and J.T. appeals. The father of B.G. does not appeal, and the 

father of M.E. is deceased.
3

or changed the medication. The mother attended therapy for only two months, 

and the father attended therapy only once.

Review hearings were held August 9 and October 12, 2016. The juvenile 

court continued its prior orders and ordered additional services including family 

team meetings, adjustments in the visitation schedule to accommodate the 

father’s work schedule, and psychological evaluations. The juvenile court again 

found reasonable efforts were being made. On February 28, 2017, a 

permanency hearing was held. The juvenile court found the parents had not 

sufficiently addressed their substance-abuse, mental-health, housing, or 

domestic-violence issues. The therapist for B.G. and M.E. testified the children 

were told by the mother DHS lies and cannot be trusted. All visits between the 

parents and children were fully supervised and did not progress beyond that 

stage. Both the mother and father continued to test positive for 

methamphetamine use and had active arrest warrants at the time of the 

termination hearing. The juvenile court terminated the parents’ parental rights on 

May 22, 2017. 

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 
4

concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the child. In re L.L., 

459 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 1990).

III. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Both the mother and father claim the evidence was not sufficient to 

terminate their parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f) and (h). The mother 

and father both concede the requirements of the first three elements of each 

subsection are met and contest only the element that the children would suffer 

further adjudicatory harm if returned to their care. See Iowa Code 

§ 232.116(1)(f)(4), (h)(4). The mother and father have not addressed their 

substance abuse, mental health, or housing. Both parents have continued to test 

positive for methamphetamine use, even after receiving treatment and a year of 

services through DHS. Neither the father nor mother has meaningfully 

participated in therapy. The children’s visits with the parents were often moved 

due to the poor condition of the family home. 

The father claims he is still employed, has fixed many of the problems with 

the family home, and has maintained a significant and positive relationship with 

his children. However, he has not addressed his significant substance-abuse 

and mental-health issues. The mother claims she has not used 

methamphetamine and the positive drug tests reflect her use of allergy 

medication. The district court did not credit the mother’s testimony, noting there 

was never an adjustment in the allergy medication or an offer of proof the 

medication could cause false positives. Additionally, the mother testified she had 

not used methamphetamine since she was eighteen. However, the statement 

was clearly false as another child, B.G., was born with methamphetamine in her 
5

system when the mother was twenty-four. The mother has not addressed her 

mental-health concerns.

The parents did not make positive steps toward reunification. After a year 

of services, no progress was made. The mother and father have both shown 

themselves to be unwilling to put the needs of their children above their own

selfish indulgence and harmful behaviors. Returning the children to the care of 

the parents at the time of the termination hearing would result in adjudicatory 

harm. We find the evidence was sufficient to terminate their parental rights.

IV. Best Interests 

We also find termination is in the best interests of all the children. 

Throughout the entire case the parents have continued their pattern of substance 

abuse. The parents have also refused to acknowledge and address significant 

mental-health issues. The therapist for the older children testified they desire 

permanency and stability. The parents are incapable of providing either. We find 

the parents have proven themselves undeserving of the responsibility of caring 

for and raising these children. The children deserve a stable, caring, and 

nurturing home, and we will not require them to continue to wait for such stability. 

See D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707. Termination is in the best interests of the 

children.

V. Exceptions

The juvenile court may decide not to terminate parental rights if any 

exception set out in Iowa Code section 232.116(3) is shown. “The court has 

discretion, based on the unique circumstances of each case and the best 

interests of the child, whether to apply the factors in this section to save the 
6

parent-child relationship.” In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458, 475 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011). 

The father claims the juvenile court erred in finding the exceptions to termination 

did not apply. Specifically, the father claims his bond with the children is so 

strong as to preclude termination. The father points to instances of playing with 

the children during supervised visits. Isolated instances of the father properly 

parenting and enjoying time with his children while supervised do not point to a 

bond so strong as to preclude termination.

The father also claims he should have been granted an additional six 

months to work toward reunification. We refuse to deny the children stability for 

an additional six months based on the father’s assurances he will finally become 

a minimally acceptable parent. See D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707. He has proven 

himself incapable and unwilling to improve himself. Past behavior is the best 

indication of future performance. See In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 

1997).

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.