In the Interest of A.L., A.L., and A.L., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1709
Filed January 9, 2020
IN THE INTEREST OF A.L., A.L., and A.L.,
Minor Children,
T.L., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Deborah Farmer
Minot, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to three children.
AFFIRMED.
Andrew R. Wiezorek of Jacobson, Johnson and Wiezorek, P.L.C., Cedar
Rapids, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Robert W. Davison, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to twins born in 2017
and a third child born in 2018.1 He contends termination was not in the children’s
best interests, the district court should have granted an exception to termination
based on the parent-child bond, and the court should have given him six additional
months to work toward reunification.
The department of human services intervened after the father was arrested
and charged with assaulting the mother and the mother was arrested and charged
with possession of drug paraphernalia. The district court ordered the children’s
removal from parental custody, and the parents stipulated to their adjudication as
children in need of assistance. The children remained out of the parents’ custody
throughout the child-in-need-of-assistance and termination proceedings.
The district court terminated parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(h) (2019), which requires proof of several elements, including proof the
children could not be returned to parental custody. The father does not challenge
the State’s proof of the elements of this statutory provision.
Termination also had to be in the children’s best interests. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2). The father argues the standard was not satisfied because he “was
submitting to drug tests while the CINA case was pending,” he “had completed
intake for” a domestic abuse treatment program “but was unable to start classes,”
“[t]he children were not suffering adverse effects,” he “was visiting with his children
1 The mother’s parental rights were also terminated. She did not appeal.
3
throughout this case,” and he “struggled with transportation throughout the case
which hindered his ability to progress.” We are unpersuaded by these arguments.
The department reported that the children were “completely dependent on
caretakers to meet their needs” and domestic-violence and substance-abuse
concerns posed threats of maltreatment. The father admittedly failed to participate
in classes to address domestic abuse, albeit through no fault of his own. He also
failed to obtain a mental-health evaluation or address his outsize anger issues.
The department of human services afforded him twelve opportunities to undergo
drug tests. He did not submit to any. Although he underwent four drug tests
administered by his probation officer, only one was negative for illegal substances.
He failed to complete a substance-abuse evaluation and admitted to relapsing on
methamphetamine and marijuana.
We turn to the father’s contention that the children experienced no adverse
effects as a result of his conduct. In fact, the guardian ad litem reported that two
of the children suffered “developmental delays.” Although all three children were
doing well at the time of the termination hearing, the father could take little credit
for their progress. He was jailed for a portion of the time and, when he was not
incarcerated, he only attended eleven supervised visits with his children, of the
twenty-seven that were offered. There is scant if any evidence that the father
informed the department of transportation difficulties or sought assistance in
attending the visits, despite an admonition that he “must come forward and request
. . . services” he believed would assist him in achieving reunification. On our de
novo review, we conclude the father failed to address the safety concerns that
4
precipitated removal of the children from his custody and, accordingly, termination
of his parental rights was in the children’s best interests.
The district court declined to invoke an exception to termination based on
the parent-child bond. See id. § 232.116(3)(c). The court stated, there was “no
evidence of a strong, trusting parental bond with the father due to his failure to
attend visits regularly when he was free to do so, and due to his recent period of
incarceration.” The record supports the court’s finding. The visit supervisor
testified the father attempted to play with the children, but they showed a greater
attachment to her than to him. Given the father’s inconsistent attendance at the
twice-weekly visits, the children’s reluctance to engage with him was not
surprising. On our de novo review of the record, we agree with the district court’s
decision to not apply section 232.116(3)(c).
The district court also declined the father’s request for additional time to
work toward reunification. The court cited the parents’ “failure to take advantage
of services in the past, their poor history of response to services, and their long
history of severe problems with substance abuse, criminal behavior, and domestic
violence.” The father asserts that he could benefit from additional time, given his
recent release from jail. For the same reasons as the district court cited, we
conclude additional time was not warranted.
We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights to his children.
AFFIRMED.