Court Opinion

ID: 9408684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 15:07:38.509229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:45.476629
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                    No. 23-0693
                                Filed July 13, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF K.S.-M. and T.A.,
Minor Children,

K.A., Father,
       Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley,

District Associate Judge.

      A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.

      Michael M. Lindeman of Lindeman Law, Cedar Rapids, for appellant father.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

      Julie F. Trachta of Linn County Advocate, Inc., Cedar Rapids, attorney and

guardian ad litem for minor children.

      Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.
                                           2

BOWER, Chief Judge.

       A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. 1 On our de novo

review, see In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157, 166 (Iowa 2020), we affirm.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings.

       K.A. is the father of K.S.-M., born in 2019, and T.A., born in 2022. The

children’s half-sibling, H.A., was part of the same termination hearing but has a

different father.2

       The family first came to the attention of the department of health and human

services (HHS) in 2020 following allegations of drug use and domestic violence

between the father and mother. In October, the HHS worker was meeting with the

mother and her sister, who often took care of K.S.-M., when two men broke into

the apartment and acted aggressively toward the occupants. The father was one

of the men, and the worker believed he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

A child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) petition was filed as to K.S.-M. The mother

participated in services, had an extended period of sobriety, and the CINA

proceedings were closed in September 2021.

       In February 2022, the mother and T.A. tested positive for methamphetamine

and marijuana when T.A. was born. The next month, CINA petitions were filed for

K.S.-M. and T.A. The father and the children went to stay with the paternal

1 The mother’s parental rights were also terminated. She does not appeal.
2 The father attempts to appeal the termination of rights regarding H.A. However,
since he is not H.A.’s biological father, he had no parental rights for the court to
terminate relating to H.A., and he does not have standing to challenge the
termination of H.A.’s biological parents’ rights. See Godfrey v. State, 752
N.W.2d 413, 418 (Iowa 2008) (requiring a litigant to “(1) have a specific personal
or legal interest in the litigation and (2) be injuriously affected” to have standing to
challenge a statute).
                                         3

grandmother.     Although the children were in his custody, the father and his

girlfriend would rent a room at a hotel and leave the children in the grandmother’s

care.

        In May, the father was arrested for assault and domestic abuse against the

mother.    The court ordered the children’s removal from parental care and

placement with the paternal grandmother. The father’s visitation was ordered to

be fully supervised.

        In July, the father bonded out of jail and began having unsupervised contact

with the children at the grandmother’s home. During a visit, the HHS worker found

the children in the father’s care while the grandmother was working. The father

smelled of alcoholic beverages, and he admitted he had been drinking.           The

children were moved to family foster care. At the request of HHS, the court ordered

the father “to complete a substance abuse evaluation, drug testing, a psychological

evaluation, and participate in an approved program to address the concerns of

domestic violence.”      He participated in a substance-abuse evaluation in

September, telling the evaluator he had been sober for four months—he did not

admit his alcohol use witnessed by HHS in July.

        Although the father was arrested in December of 2022 for theft, the court

the following month extended the case permanency goal for sixty days, with hopes

the father would make progress and reunify with the children. The guardian ad

litem had recommended against an extension, noting the father’s regular alcohol

use, failure to take interest in the children’s medical care, a lack of honesty on

multiple fronts, and allegations of domestic violence. The court ordered the father

to participate in the children’s appointments, participate in a domestic violence
                                          4

program, cooperate with drug and alcohol testing, and complete substance-abuse

and   psychological     evaluations,   following   through    “with   any   and      all

recommendations.” The father completed a psychological evaluation in January,

but HHS noted inconsistencies in his self-reporting, particularly his alcohol use.

       The father was again arrested during the sixty-day extension, this time for

driving while barred.

       The father failed to ensure the children attended necessary medical

appointments; did not sign necessary releases for T.A.’s treatment; and, after they

had been placed in foster care, attended the children’s appointments sporadically.3

He did not exhibit interest or ask the foster family any questions when T.A. was

briefly hospitalized. When questioned during the termination trial, he claimed he

did not remember or recall any participation in K.S.-M.’s first CINA case, nor

meeting with HHS caseworkers investigating allegations he hit the mother while

she held the child, which occurred less than two years earlier.

       The court terminated the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section

232.116(1)(h) (2022). 4 The father appeals, challenging the ground for termination

and asserting termination is not in the best interests of the children.

3 T.A. was born eleven weeks premature and had recurring appointments for nine
months to monitor her development.
4 Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) allows the court to terminate parental rights if

“all of the following have occurred”:
                 (1) The child is three years of age or younger.
                 (2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of
         assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
                 (3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of
         the child’s parents for at least six months of the last twelve months,
         or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home
         has been less than thirty days.
                                          5

II. Analysis.

       The father challenges the ground for termination of his parental rights. The

first three elements for termination under section 232.116(1)(h) are clearly met.

K.S.-M. and T.A. were adjudicated CINA in April 2022, and both were three years

of age or younger at the time of the termination hearing in March 2023. See Iowa

Code § 232.116(1)(h)(1), (2). The children were removed from parental custody

in   May   2022—ten-months       before   the   termination    hearing.     See    id.

§ 232.116(1)(h)(3). The father does not contest these elements. He only contests

the fourth element: “[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that the child[ren]

cannot be returned to the custody of the child[ren]’s parents . . . at the present

time.” Id. § 232.116(1)(h)(4). “[A]t the present time” means at the time of the

termination hearing. See In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010).

       The juvenile court found the father was not a credible witness, stating,

“Throughout the case, [the father]’s honesty was questionable.” The court noted

several occasions where the father gave multiple explanations for problem

behavior, his testimony was directly contradicted by his own witnesses, his denial

of participating in K.S.-M.’s prior CINA, and his misrepresentations of his criminal

behavior. The father did not demonstrate the ability to reliably attend the children’s

medical appointments, follow through with arranging additional appointments, or

ensure medications were taken as needed. The father was also dishonest in the

evaluations ordered by the courts about his alcohol use.

               (4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child
       cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided
       in section 232.102 at the present time.
                                          6

       On our review of the record, we find extremely concerning the multiple bouts

of domestic violence by the father against the mother during this case and during

the prior CINA case for K.S.-M., all of which the father denied or claimed not to

remember.     See J.H., 952 N.W.2d at 168 (stating a parent with a history of

domestic violence “must work to change the documented reputation they have

established through their actions in past . . . cases,” even if it is not a prevailing

concern in the current case). In fact, the father’s own memory of his problem

behaviors, which put the children at risk, was either nonexistent or conveniently

vague. He was not consistent in getting himself—or the children when in his care—

to necessary medical appointments. In the year the CINA cases were open, the

father accrued several criminal offenses, casting doubt on the stability of any home

he might provide. We find clear and convincing evidence the children cannot be

returned to the father’s custody at the present time.

       The father also asserts termination is not in the children’s best interests

because of their bond and his love for them. In considering the best interests of

the children, we consider their safety, the best placement for their long-term

growth, and “the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the

child[ren].” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). Our best-interests analysis also includes

considering the children’s integration into a foster family. Id. § 232.16(2)(b). We

consider the children’s long-range and immediate interests, including the child’s

future if returned to the parents. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006).

“When making this decision, we look to the parents’ past performance because it

may indicate the quality of care the parent is capable of providing in the future.”

Id. (citation omitted).
                                          7

       The juvenile court found the children “need and deserve a sober, violence-

free, and stable home and their parents have not demonstrated any ability to

provide such a home for any significant period of time.” The court noted the father

delegates much of the children’s care to the grandmother and his girlfriend, despite

their failure to meet the children’s medical needs when the children were in their

care in summer 2022. We agree with the court’s observations and note the

children are integrated into their foster family, which includes two half-sisters: H.A.

and an older child. The father is not the best placement for the children’s long-

term growth or needs, and we find termination of his parental rights is in the

children’s best interests.

       AFFIRMED.