In re A.R. & A.R.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1712
Filed January 10, 2018
IN THE INTEREST OF A.R. and A.R.,
Minor Children,
A.R., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Craig M.
Dreismeier, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his twin children.
AFFIRMED.
Roberta J. Megel of State Public Defender Office, Council Bluffs, for
appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Marti D. Nerenstone, Council Bluffs, 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 his twin children,
born in 2016. He contends (1) the record lacks evidence to support the grounds
for termination cited by the district court, (2) the department of human services
failed to make reasonable reunification efforts, and (3) termination was not in the
children’s best interests.
I. Grounds for Termination
The district court terminated the father’s parental rights on more than one
statutory ground. We may affirm the decision if we find clear and convincing
evidence to support any of the grounds. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.
App. 1999). We focus on Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2016), which requires
proof of several elements, including proof the child cannot be returned to the
parent’s custody.
The case began with the five-month old half-sibling of the twins, who were
still in utero. The father1 cared for the half-sibling while her mother worked. One
day, the mother returned from work to find the infant in severe distress. She was
taken to a hospital, where professionals diagnosed her with a skull fracture and
subdural hematoma.
The department intervened and questioned the father about events leading
up to the hospitalization. He stated he tossed the child into the air and
inadvertently let her slip through his hands. The child fell to the floor and soon
began breathing oddly.
1
This father was the biological father of the twins. A second man was the father of the
half-sibling and a third man was the legal father of the children.
3
An emergency room physician found it extremely unlikely that the child
sustained the severe injuries to her head in the type of fall described by the father.
The more likely explanation, in her view, was shaking of the baby, which involved
greater force than the force occasioned by a fall. The physician later opined the
child sustained abusive non-accidental injuries.
The State charged the father with willful injury resulting in serious injury and
child endangerment. He was jailed and released on bond, subject to an order
prohibiting contact with the child. While on release, he interacted with mother and
child at his parents’ home. The district court ordered the child removed from the
mother’s care for facilitating the interaction and the father was jailed for violating
the no contact order. The father ultimately pled guilty to the charges, was
sentenced, and, two days after the birth of the twins, was imprisoned at the
Clarinda Correctional Facility.
In time, the father transitioned to a residential correctional facility. He was
slated to begin supervised visits with the twins but violated rules prohibiting
drinking and threats of violence directed at staff. The father returned to the Clarinda
prison, where he remained for almost nine months. He was paroled twelve days
before the termination hearing, moved in with his parents, and underwent intensive
parole supervision. The department was to facilitate a supervised visit with the
twins but, at the time of the hearing, the father had yet to see them.
On our de novo review, we are persuaded the father was in no position to
have the twins transferred to his custody. He had not met them and squandered
the opportunity for regular visits with them while housed at the residential
4
correctional facility. On our de novo review, we conclude the State proved
termination was warranted under section 232.116(1)(h).
II. Reasonable Efforts
The father contends the department failed to make reasonable efforts to
reunify the twins with him. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000). To
the contrary, the department contacted the father in July 2016 to facilitate visits,
spoke to department of corrections personnel about arranging visits, and provided
reunification services following the father’s release from prison. We conclude the
department satisfied its reasonable efforts mandate.
III. Best Interests
Termination must be in the children’s best interests. See In re P.L., 778
N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010). Under the circumstances outlined above, we conclude
termination of the father’s parental rights to the twins was in the children’s best
interests.
AFFIRMED.