Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 1-909 / 11-1046 Filed December 21, 2011

IN THE INTEREST OF L.G., Minor Child, L.N., Mother, Appellant, T.G., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Carol S. Egly, District Associate Judge.

A mother and father appeal separately from the order terminating their parental rights. AFFIRMED.

Jeffery Wright, Des Moines, for appellant mother. Nathaniel Tagtow, Des Moines, for appellant father. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Katherine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jon Anderson, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State. Michelle Saveraid of the Youth Law Center, Des Moines, for minor child.

Considered by Danilson, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.

2 DANILSON, P.J. The father of L.G. appeals the termination of his parental rights. He

contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and termination is not in the child's best interests. Considering the father's severe, chronic substance abuse problem and hi s history and prognosis, we find there is clear and convincing evidence the child will not be able to be returned to his custody within a reasonable period of time. We further agree termination is in the child's best interests, despite the child's placement with a relative and any presence of a parent-child bond. We affirm termination of the father's parental rights. The mother appealed the termination of her parental rights, but her appeal was not timely filed and was dismissed by our supreme court. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. This family has a long history of involvement with the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS). The mother gave birth to L.G.'s half -brother, D.B., in June 2004. A no-contact order was in place between the mother and D.B.'s father, Dan, as a result of incidents of domestic violence between them. There was drug use in the home as well. Dan was arrested in March 2005 for an incident of domestic violence. By April 2005, the mother and D.B. were residing with the mother's next paramour, Mr. Murphy. There was drug use and ongoing violence between the mother and Mr. Murphy in the home. D.B. was removed from the mother's care after being present when police officers interrupted a drug transaction in the

3 home. Methamphetamine and marijuana were found in the couple's possession. D.B. was placed in the custody of his maternal grandparents. The mother began living with her next paramour, the father. She became pregnant with L.G. The mother engaged in services, and in April 2006, D.B. was returned to her care. In August 2006, L.G. was born. There were incidents of domestic violence between the mother and father. In December 2006, the

mother was arrested for domestic assault after an argument with the father over the care of L.G. Two weeks later, the mother was arrested for assault with a weapon after attempting to run down a female friend with her vehicle. In January 2007, L.G. and D.B. were removed from the mother's care in response to the mother's arrests and resulting incarceration, as well as concerns about drug dealing, substance abuse, and ongoing domestic violence. D.B. was placed back in the care of the maternal grandparents; L.G. was placed in the care of the father. The father was on probation for drug-related charges, but was "in good standing" with his probation officer. In July 2007, with the permission of DHS, the mother moved in with the father and L.G. In September 2007, D.B. was returned to the mother's care. In February 2008, the mother was arrested for a domestic assault on the father. A no-contact order was put in place. D.B. was placed back in the care of the maternal grandparents. The mother initially moved in with D.B. and the maternal grandparents while L.G. remained in the care of the father. The mother then moved back in with the father and L.G. In April 2008, DHS learned the mother had moved out of the family home. The mother stated her intention to "truly address her mental health issues." She

4 stated L.G. should remain with the father. In May 2008, L.G. was placed in the custody and guardianship of the father. The mother also stated it was in D.B.'s best interests to remain with the maternal grandparents because "he had spent so much time with them." In September 2008, the mother and Dan's parental rights to D.B. were terminated. D.B. was adopted by the maternal grandparents in January 2009. In February 2009, the mother gave birth to P.J. Another paramour of the mother, Luke, was the putative father of P.J. DHS later learned the mother had shared "some type of ongoing, but volatile relationship" with Luke for several years. In March 2009, the father tested positive for marijuana at a low level. L.G. remained in his custody. There were allegations the mother and father were using methamphetamine together, but DHS did not find evidence to support the allegations. In June 2009, the mother and father moved in together and "shar[ed] care of L.G. and P.J." By July 2009, the couple had again separated. In August 2009, the father relapsed on methamphetamine. L.G. was

placed with the maternal grandparents. It appeared to be "a true relapse" and the father "seemed to be accountable, reengaged in substance abuse treatment, and committed to sobriety." In October 2009, L.G. was returned to the father's care. The father obtained a district court order that placed L.G. in the joint legal custody of the parents, but in the sole physical custody of the father. Reasonable visitation with the mother was allowed under the father's supervision. The juvenile court closed L.G.'s child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) case in March 2010.

5 DHS later discovered the father had started using methamphetamine again shortly after L.G.'s CINA case closed. The family came to the attention of DHS again in July 2010, when L.G. was present during a domestic assault between the mother and Luke. The child was on an unsupervised visit with the mother, who was living with Luke. DHS found the mother and father were

sharing care of L.G. about "50/50" regardless of the district court's custodial order as well as DHS recommendations to the father that the mother could not provide unsupervised care for L.G. Three days later, on July 15, 2010, L.G. was present when the father physically mangled and killed a cat. In August 2010, L.G.'s guardian ad litem requested permission from the juvenile court to file a new CINA petition for L.G. In the early morning hours of October 4, 2010, police stopped the father's vehicle for driving without headlights. Police discovered methamphetamine and burglary tools in the vehicle. L.G. was unfastened in his car seat, and a pair of scissors was within his reach. The father was arrested on charges of child L.G. was

endangerment, burglary, and possession of methamphetamine.

removed from the father's care. L.G. spent the night in shelter and was placed with the maternal grandparents the next day, where he has remained to date. On October 19, 2010, L.G. was again adjudicated CINA. In the course of L.G.'s second CINA adjudication and investigation, DHS discovered the father was using illegal drugs, had lost his employment, and was essentially homeless. Reasonable efforts were waived, and the State filed its petition to terminate parental rights to L.G. in November 2010. The termination hearing took place in February 2011. The juvenile court observed that just days before the hearing the

6 father was arrested on theft and possession of methamphetamine charges. The juvenile court entered its order in June 2011, terminating the mother's and father's parental rights. The juvenile court observed that "initially it appeared the principle ongoing protective issues involved the mother"; however, "[s]hortly thereafter it became apparent that both parents had unresolved issues which placed L.G. at risk, but that was in retrospect." The parents now appeal.1 II. Standard of Review. We conduct a de novo review of termination of parental rights proceedings. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). Although we are not bound by the juvenile court's findings of fact, we do give them weight, especially in assessing the credibility of witnesses. In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). An order terminating parental rights will be upheld if there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116 (2011). See id. Evidence is considered "clear and convincing" when there are no "serious or substantial doubts as to the correctness or conclusions of law drawn from the evidence." Id. III. Analysis. Iowa Code chapter 232 termination of parental rights follows a three-step analysis. See P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 39. The court must initially determine whether a ground for termination under section 232.116(1) is established. Id. If a ground for termination is established, the court must next apply the best-interest framework set out in section 232.116(2) to decide if the grounds for termination
The mother's appeal was not timely filed. On November 7, 2011, our supreme court issued an order dismissing the mother's appeal. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.201(1)(b) (2009).
1

7 should result in a termination of parental rights. Id. If the statutory best-interest framework supports termination of parental rights, the court must finally consider if any statutory exceptions or factors set out in section 232.116(3) weigh against termination of parental rights. Id. A. Grounds for Termination. The juvenile court entered its order terminating the father's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(b), (i), and (l). The father contends clear and convincing evidence does not support termination under any of these sections. We may affirm the termination if facts support the termination of a parent's rights under any of the sections cited by the juvenile court. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). We focus our analysis in this appeal on section 232.116(1)(l). Termination is appropriate under that section where the State has proved the following: (1) The child has been adjudicated a CINA and custody has been transferred from the child's parents for placement. (2) The parent has a severe, chronic substance abuse problem and presents a danger to self or others as evidenced by prior acts. (3) The parent's prognosis indicates the child will not be able to be returned to the custody of the parent within a reasonable period of time considering the child's age and need for a permanent home. Iowa Code

Download IN THE INTEREST OF L.G., Minor Child, L.N., Mother, Appellant, T.G., Father, App

Iowa Law