In re R.C. ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1407
Filed December 6, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF
R.C., Minor Child,
A.C., Father,
Appellant.
______________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda D. Belcher,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Thomas A. Hurd of Glazebrook & Hurd, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Meredith L. Lamberti, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
ConGarry D. Williams, State Public Defender’s Office, Des Moines,
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
A father appeals the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights.
We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support
termination of the father’s rights. We also find termination is in the child’s best
interests. We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
A.C., father, and M.C., mother, are the parents of a child, R.C., born in
2014. The parents have a history of substance abuse. The child was removed
from the parents’ care on July 28, 2016, after the mother became intoxicated and
abandoned the child near an intersection. The mother was charged with public
intoxication, child endangerment, and assault on a police officer. The father
stated he had recently used methamphetamine and was not in a position to
safely parent the child. On removal, a hair test of the child was positive for
methamphetamine and marijuana. The child was placed in the care of a
maternal great-aunt.
The child was adjudicated to be in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to
Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n) (2016). Until January 2017 the father
had very limited contact with employees of the Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS). The child was hospitalized in February 2017 and restraints
were necessary to keep the child from removing a tube in her nose. The parents
removed one of the restraints, the young child removed the tubing, and medical
personnel had to reinsert the tube, causing the child additional pain. In April
2017, DHS requested the father wear a drug patch and he refused. He did not
3
participate in substance abuse treatment or mental health counseling. The father
was inconsistent in exercising visitation with the child.
On May 8, 2017, the State filed a petition seeking termination of the
parents’ rights. At the termination hearing, held on July 6, 2017, the juvenile
court ordered the father to submit to a drug test that day. The test was positive
for marijuana, amphetamine, and methamphetamine. The court terminated the
father’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h) (2017).1 The court found
termination was in the child’s best interests, noting “ongoing concerns about the
safety of the child if returned to the care of either parent.” The father now
appeals the termination of his parental rights.
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 conclusions drawn from the
evidence. In re D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359, 361 (Iowa 2002). The paramount
concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the children. In re
L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 1990).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The father claims there was not clear and convincing evidence in the
record to support termination of his parental rights. He claims the State failed to
meet its burden to show the child could not be returned to his care. He states he
1
The mother’s parental rights were also terminated. She has not appealed.
4
has a close bond with the child. He claims there was no evidence to show any
substance abuse or mental health concerns would prevent him from caring for
the child.
We find there is sufficient evidence in the record to support termination of
the father’s parental rights. At the time of removal, the father told social workers
he could not safely parent the child because he had been using
methamphetamine. He refused the only drug testing request during the case, in
April 2017. He did not participate in treatment for substance abuse. On the day
of the termination hearing, the father tested positive for multiple controlled
substances. We conclude the evidence shows the child could not be safely
returned to the father’s care because he has not taken any steps to address his
substance abuse issues.
IV. Best Interests
The father claims termination of his parental rights is not in the child’s best
interests. In determining children's best interests, we “give primary consideration
to the child’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing
and growth of the child, and to the physical, mental, and emotional condition and
needs of the child.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2); In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa
2010).
We find termination of the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best
interests. Although the child was removed in July 2016, the father had very
limited contact with DHS until January 2017. Initially, he did not attend any visits
or participate in any services. Even after he began attending visits with the child
5
in February 2017, he continued to be inconsistent in attendance—sometimes
missing visits and sometimes arriving late. The father’s actions regarding
visitation and in failing to address his substance abuse problems show he was
unable to meet the needs of the child.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.