In the Interest of D.S., Minor Child, C v. Father ( 2016 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1268
Filed October 12, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF D.S.,
Minor Child,
C.V., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Steven J.
Holwerda, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the order terminating his parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Nicholas A. Bailey of Bailey Law Firm, P.L.C.C., Altoona, for appellant
father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Jonathan D. Noble and Janet L.
Hoffman, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee State.
Meegan M. Langmaid-Keller of Kellar Law Office, P.C. , Altoona, for minor
child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
A father appeals the order terminating his parental rights.1 We find the
father has not preserved error on the issues of sufficiency of the evidence and
the State’s reasonable efforts. We also find termination is in the best interests of
the child. Accordingly, we affirm.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
D.S. was born premature in October 2015 and immediately removed from
the care of the mother, a quadriplegic living in a nursing home where the child
would not be allowed to reside, and the father, who has significant substance
abuse issues and who had been charged with dependent adult abuse against the
mother. As a result, D.S. was placed with the paternal grandmother.
The juvenile court adjudicated D.S. a child in need of assistance (CINA) at
the end of October due to the father’s history of methamphetamine use, founded
reports of failure to care for the mother, and abuse of the mother’s medications.
The father was required to obtain substance-abuse and mental health
evaluations, participate in supervised visits, attend parenting classes, comply
with random drug testing, and follow the recommendations of the evaluations and
family services.
The father’s mental health evaluation included previous diagnoses of
OCD2, ADHD3, and bipolar disorder. Recommended treatment included
individual therapy and medication management. The father completed
1
The mother separately appealed but her appeal was denied as untimely. Therefore,
we will only address the termination in regards to the father.
2
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
3
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
3
medication management but never attended therapy. He also completed a
substance abuse evaluation, but did not complete treatment due to poor
attendance. The father never completed parenting classes, again failing to
attend sessions or make contact with his parent partner. He did not fully comply
with random drug testing and tested positive during the evaluation period. His
only significant period of sobriety was during his incarceration.
The father was arrested in March 2016 and charged with dependent adult
abuse for failure to care for the child’s mother. He pled guilty and was sentenced
to ten years in prison with no mandatory minimum.
On June 23, 2016, the juvenile court entered an order terminating the
father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (h), (l)
(2015). The father now appeals.
II. Standard of Review
The standard of review for termination cases is de novo. In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). There must be clear and convincing evidence in
order to establish grounds for termination. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa
2006). Clear and convincing evidence means 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). Our paramount concern in all
termination proceedings is the best interests of the child. In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d
489, 493 (Iowa 1990).
III. Preservation of Errors
The State claims the father failed to preserve all his claims by not offering
any evidence at the termination hearing and failing to cross-examine the
4
witnesses on issues other than the mother’s ability to care for the child. We find
the father failed to preserve the issues of sufficiency of the evidence and the
State’s provision of reasonable efforts.4
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence
“As a general rule, an issue not presented in the juvenile court may not be
raised for the first time on appeal.” In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa Ct.
App. 1994). The father made no motions on this point prior to the termination nor
did the father testify, offer exhibits, object, or cross examine witnesses regarding
the sufficiency of the evidence at the termination hearing. Therefore, we will not
consider this issue.
B. Reasonable Efforts
The father briefly mentions reasonable efforts for reunification were not
made by the State. Parents are required to challenge the reasonableness of the
services and efforts of the State prior to the termination hearing. See In re C.D.,
508 N.W.2d 97, 101 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993). Juvenile court orders dated October
6, October 16, October 30, and December 17, 2015 make general findings that
reasonable efforts were made by the State. The father never challenged the
reasonableness of the efforts until this appeal. Any challenge to the case plan
must be made before the termination hearing. Id. Therefore, we will not
consider this issue.
4
Even if these issues had been properly preserved our opinion would remain
unchanged.
5
C. Additional Time
The father claims the juvenile court erred in not continuing the case for six
months to allow him to work towards reunification with the child. We are
unconvinced the grounds for D.S.’s removal would be resolved if an additional six
months were granted. The father has consistently shown an inability to care for
himself, let alone the child. Ample services were provided, which he failed to
use. Except when incarcerated, the father has failed to maintain sobriety and
failed to make use of addiction services available to him. He claims he may be
paroled on the remainder of his ten-year sentence at any time. There is little
evidence, outside his statement, that parole is imminent. Even if parole were
imminent, the father does not have the skills or motivation to parent this child.
IV. Best Interests of the Child
The father claims termination is not in the best interests of the child. He
claims “[d]uring visitations both parents were appropriate and showed adequate
parenting skills” and that D.S. is closely bonded with the father. However, the
juvenile court found “[h]is visits have been ‘off and on’ . . . he has not made a
genuine effort to complete the responsibilities prescribed in the case plan . . . he
has not made a genuine effort to communicate with the child or maintain a place
of importance in the child’s life.” Again, the father is currently serving a ten-year
prison sentence for dependent adult abuse. The father also struggled with
substance abuse issues up to the time of his incarceration, including taking
medication from the mother and chewing her pain medication patches. When
confronted about this abuse of the mother’s medications he “trashed the
property.”
6
We find it is clearly in the best interests of the child for the father’s parental
rights to be terminated. The child is still young and unaffected by the father’s
inability to care for himself, his wife, and the child. It is in D.S.’s best interests to
find a stable living situation as soon as possible. We refuse to ask the child to
wait for a parent to become stable, especially when past behavior indicates they
are unwilling and unable to change. See D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707.
AFFIRMED.