In re G.C. and D.C. ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1758
Filed January 24, 2018
IN THE INTEREST OF G.C. and D.C.,
Minor Children,
D.C., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Jennifer S.
Bailey, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to two children.
AFFIRMED.
Heidi D. Van Winkle of Van Winkle Law Office, Burlington, for appellant
father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Meredith L. Lamberti, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Shane Wiley, West Burlington, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and McDonald, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to two children, born
in 2003 and 2004. He contends (1) the State failed to prove the ground for
termination cited by the district court and (2) termination was not in the children’s
best interests.
I. Grounds for Termination
The district court terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(l) (2017), which requires the State to prove the following:
(1) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance
pursuant to section 232.96 and custody has been transferred from
the child’s parents for placement pursuant to section 232.102.
(2) The parent has a severe substance-related disorder and presents
a danger to self or others as evidenced by prior acts.
(3) There is clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s
prognosis indicates that 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.
The father disagrees he had a “severe substance-related disorder.” Id.
§ 232.116(1)(l)(2). On our de novo review of the record, we find clear and
convincing evidence to satisfy this element. The father began using marijuana at
the age of eleven and began using methamphetamine at twenty-one. He was
forty-seven at the time of the termination hearing. When asked how long he had
a diagnosis of substance use disorder he stated “thirty-one years.”
A clinical psychiatrist with the Iowa Medical and Classification Center
confirmed diagnoses of amphetamine use disorder and cannabis use disorder.
Although the psychiatrist was not involved in the original mental health evaluation
leading to the diagnoses, he handled a follow-up visit with the father and was
familiar with his mental health conditions.
3
The father’s admitted “struggle with addiction” was reflected in his criminal
history. At the time of the termination hearings in 2017, he was incarcerated for
“prohibited acts, manufacturing with intent to deliver.” He testified to two 2004
convictions for possession of a controlled substance and a third conviction in the
same year for possession of methamphetamine precursors. In 2015, he was
convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine, and in 2016 and 2017, he was
convicted of possession of a controlled substance.
The father’s substance-abuse disorder was also reflected in his long-term
involvement with the department of human services, which began shortly after the
children’s birth. The State filed a child-in-need-of-assistance petition based on
parental drug use, which culminated in the termination of the mother’s parental
rights. Although the children were reunified with their father and remained with
him for a decade, the father’s self-reported period of sobriety ended in early 2015.
The father agreed to place the children in a voluntary guardianship with his
sister and her husband, the same individuals who cared for the children after their
birth. He was reunified with the children later in the year, but the reunification was
shortlived.
The father relapsed and was arrested and jailed in March 2016. The
children were again transferred to the care of their paternal aunt and uncle. The
father stipulated to the facts contained in the State’s child-in-need-of-assistance
petition, and the district court found the children had suffered or were imminently
likely to suffer harmful effects as a result of the father’s failure to exercise a
reasonable degree of care in supervising them. See id. § 232.2(6)(c)(2); see also
id. § 232.116(1)(l)(1).
4
The father returned to drug use upon his release from jail a few months
later. He participated in reunification services, and in January 2017, the court
ordered the children returned to his care.
Again, the reunification was shortlived. The father relapsed within a month
and was arrested the following month on a drug charge and probation violation.
He was convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned.
The father’s imprisonment prevented the children from being returned to his
custody within a reasonable period of time. See id. § 232.116(1)(l)(1), (3). The
earliest date on which he could be paroled or released to a residential correctional
facility was April 2018. His tentative discharge date was October 2021. A
department employee in charge of the case testified, “The boys are asking for
closure and they’re at the age when they can ask for that.” She stated, “The boys
have been in a guardianship situation and they had to return to dad and then their
life was uprooted again four months later. So they do not trust that.”
We conclude the State satisfied its burden of proving the elements of
section 232.116(1)(l).
II. Best Interests
Termination must also be in the children’s best interests. See In re P.L.,
778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010). The father acknowledged his drug use “had an
effect on” the children. He nonetheless argued for a permanent guardianship in
lieu of termination of his parental rights, in case the children wished to come back
to him in the future.
As noted, the department employee saw this option as prolonging the
children’s turmoil. She testified, “Neither one of these boys want to hurt their dad,
5
but . . . they’re done living this life.” In her words, they just “want [department]
intervention to stop.” At the second of two termination hearings, she reiterated,
“[T]hey want to be done. They want to be safe. They want to be secure. As far
as getting DHS out of their life, that has happened before with a guardianship also.
But they do not want to have to worry about anybody coming to get them.” As for
the possibility of physical harm to the children if returned, she noted the father had
a methamphetamine lab in his home in 2016.
We conclude termination of the father’s parental rights to the children was
in their best interests.
AFFIRMED.