Opinion
24-0093
03-27-2024
IN THE INTEREST OF C.L., Minor Child, P.L., Father, Appellant.
Steven W. Stickle of Stickle Law Firm, P.L.C., Davenport, for appellant father. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Camille Kahn, Davenport, attorney for minor child. Jennifer Olsen, Davenport, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Michael Motto, Judge.
The father appeals termination of his parental rights.
Steven W. Stickle of Stickle Law Firm, P.L.C., Davenport, for appellant father.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Camille Kahn, Davenport, attorney for minor child. Jennifer Olsen, Davenport, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.
BULLER, JUDGE.
The father appeals termination of his parental rights to his daughter C.L. (born 2008). (The mother's rights were previously terminated and are not at issue in this appeal.) The father asserts the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) failed to make reasonable efforts and argues the statutory elements of termination were not supported by sufficient evidence. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
HHS removed C.L. from the father's care in August 2022 based on concerns the father was using methamphetamine or other controlled substances while caring for her. During that removal, the father became aggressive and violent, leading to charges of criminal mischief for damaging a door and disorderly conduct for outbursts and physical aggression toward staff. The child told HHS she was afraid of the father. And, at the formal removal hearing, the father "interrupted a witness during testimony with his outbursts, he banged his handcuffs on the table, glared at the child and those supporting her[,] and consistently attempted to mouth words to the child." The juvenile court observed the child appeared to be afraid.
HHS's primary goals for the father were for him to obtain mental-health and substance-abuse treatment, find stable housing and employment, and complete domestic-violence programming. Before removal, the father and the child had been living "on the streets" for weeks. And years prior, HHS had been involved when the father drove with the child in the car while he was under the influence.
In a substance-abuse evaluation, the father told the evaluator he "just like[s] using drugs." His ongoing substance abuse, according to HHS, negatively impacted his finances, his emotional state, and his ability to parent the child. The juvenile-court records documented the father's history using marijuana and methamphetamine, that both substances were used in the same house as the child, and that associated paraphernalia were accessible to the child. On one occasion, the father carried a large "baggie of methamphetamine" into the home while the child was present. HHS repeatedly requested the father complete drug testing, but he did not comply. HHS documents, police reports, and substanceabuse-evaluation records suggest drug use by the father throughout the year preceding termination, which only stopped when he was incarcerated.
HHS reported it was difficult to keep in contact with the father because he had multiple phone numbers over the life of the case. The father sometimes provided HHS with updated phone numbers and addresses, "but it wasn't consistent." He acknowledged to HHS that he had "bipolar disorder" and needed medication but stopped taking it.
In the months preceding termination, the father was in and out of county jails in Iowa and Illinois for violating no-contact orders and other criminal offenses, including burglary. An HHS worker discussed with the father how his unhealthy relationship led to violence; the father acknowledged the relationship with his on-again-off-again girlfriend was unhealthy, as demonstrated by police reports documenting a significant history of violence between them, but he continued the relationship anyway. As of trial, the father was incarcerated in the Scott County Jail with an outstanding warrant in Louisa County.
An HHS worker described the father's overall participation with services as "inconsistent." The father completed some coursework toward HHS goals. And he reported engaging with some mental-health services, though HHS was unable to confirm this with the provider. The father also told HHS he had completed some service packets and started domestic-violence programming the day before the termination trial. Overall, an HHS worker described the father making minimal or no progress in his core areas of need, as evidenced by his repeated and recent incarcerations in Iowa and Illinois. The worker opined that the father could not provide for the child's needs, as "he's been unable to meet his own."
The father had phone visits with C.L. earlier in the juvenile case, but an HHS worker described the father's behavior during these visits as "inappropriate." Instead of asking how the child was doing, the father focused his ire on HHS and the court system, claiming the department or foster placements "kidnapped his child." On one occasion, the father tried to attack an HHS worker in front of the child. He also tried to approach the child at school contrary to court orders, leading to police involvement and a school-wide lockdown. His communications with the child were consistently hurtful, calling her a "spoiled rotten little ass," a "disrespectful fuckin hate monger," and a "little shit." The father's communications with the child also repeatedly undermined HHS and providers; he blamed the child for "let[ting] these mother Fuckers into [his] life" and threatened to "wash [his] hands of the whole situation" and say "goodbye" to the child forever. The father also told C.L. she "has to be on his side" in court proceedings.
The father repeatedly threatened HHS workers and providers, "call[ing] all hours of the day and evening harassing and calling staff names." For example, he brought a knife and hatchet to one in-person meeting, and he told a worker he hoped her child was stillborn. His communications with HHS workers were replete with insults and foul language. A provider described the father's behavior as "disturbing" and "explosive." He stalked and harassed two potential placements so aggressively the placements withdrew from consideration, at least one of those placements requested a no-trespass order, and one stalking incident led to an arrest.
The father testified at trial, recounting his inconsistent efforts at obtaining substance-abuse and mental-health services and generally attributing these inconsistencies to insurance issues and his various stints of incarceration. He told the court that, if he was able to bond out of jail, he would be able to provide for the child by staying with a friend and relying on food stamps and social-securitydisability payments. According to the father, the "big argument" between him and HHS was that HHS was not forcing the child to have visits with him. He said he didn't "believe" that the child did not want to see him. But C.L. asked to not have in-person visits with the father until he tested negative for illegal substances. The father never met that minimal requirement. And he admitted that he could not care for his daughter as of the trial date.
C.L. turned fifteen shortly before trial, and she was placed in foster care. Despite some setbacks in her mental health, she was doing reasonably well in school and extracurriculars like show choir and church activities. By the time of trial, she was not interested in visitation or communication with the father. C.L. wanted to remain with the foster family as a long-term placement. Despite the child's preferences, an HHS worker testified she encouraged C.L. every time they met to have contact or visits with the father. Because of the child's clearly expressed views and refusal to meet with the father, they had no contact in the approximate five months preceding termination.
C.L. testified at trial consistent with the wishes she expressed to HHS, her guardian ad litem (GAL), and providers outside of court. She explained that she was doing well in foster care and felt especially connected to volunteer activities through church because it gave her a sense of community. She said she wanted the father's parental rights terminated and she understood it was permanent. When asked why she thought termination was appropriate, she said:
I feel that we've been going at this-I feel like how I would put it is like it's like a little game. We've been going at it for a year and almost a half, I think. And, like, some people would say oh, it's fun at first because it's obviously a game. But after you play that game for so long, you get tired of it. And I don't feel I can put up with the situations I'm getting put in, and the decisions I have to make that make other people unhappy because they want a different decision to happen. And he has had well over a year to get a place, get away from the toxic relationship he was in, and not sure if he is currently still in, and just get away from that specific area in general. And he refused to do that, he continued doing drugs. And he says that if we would have been able to see each other more, that our bond would be stronger, but when he first-when we started moving in with [the father's girlfriend], that's when our bond started to separate. Because it was every other night fights. She threw a speaker at him, he was on Tinder, something like that happens and we get kicked out. [Three] o'clock in the morning I have to call [a relative] and she comes at, like, [five] o'clock. Like, I should not have to be put in that situation.
When asked how the father's continued bad decisions made her feel, she explained:
I felt that it was outrageous.... I love my father, and I always will, because he's my dad. But I feel it was outrageous for him to continue going back into that situation, putting me and him in that situation, which lowered both of our mental healths, knowing that she's toxic, knowing that she does the things that she does. And I understand he was just trying to help get a place to stay, but I feel like he could have chose a better way.
She also corroborated HHS testimony that the father behaved inappropriately during visits by claiming HHS "kidnapped [her]," which led to the child crying: "I just wanted to get on the phone and have a decent conversation with him, and he didn't even ask me how my day was."
At the start of the termination trial, the father requested a continuance to address his reasonable-efforts challenge. The child's GAL and the assistant county attorney resisted, and the court denied the continuance but allowed the father to explore his claim at trial. At the close of evidence, the GAL and assistant county attorney recommended termination of parental rights, which the juvenile court ordered pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) (2023) (failure to maintain significant contact) and (f) (child cannot be returned to custody). The father appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We review termination decisions de novo. In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021). "We are not bound by the factual findings of the juvenile court, though we give them respectful consideration, particularly with respect to credibility determinations." Id.
III. Discussion
In his petition on appeal, the father primarily challenges whether HHS made reasonable efforts toward reunification, while also making some degree of challenge toward the statutory elements supporting termination. As a threshold matter, we note the father does not clearly delineate between the "reasonable efforts to resume care" required as an element of Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e)(3) and the reasonable efforts HHS is generally required to provide toward reunification through services. These concepts are not interchangeable, and we attempt to disentangle the father's claims by addressing each separately.
A. HHS's Reasonable Efforts Supporting Reunification
The father's appellate challenges occasionally veer into complaints about services that he did not timely make below, and we limit our review to the services he timely requested. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493-94 (Iowa 2000) ("We have repeatedly emphasized the importance for a parent to object to services early in the process so appropriate changes can be made."). Most of the father's argument concerns his requests for visitation with the child-particularly in-person visits.
"[T]he nature and extent of visitation is always controlled by the best interests of the child." In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343, 345 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). We have explained before that, "if services aimed to remove the risk responsible for limited visitation have not met their objective, then increased visitation would not be in the child[ ]'s best interests." In re J.C., No. 23-0729, 2023 WL 5605337, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2023). That was the case here, where the father took little or no action to remedy the adjudicatory harms that led to removal and the cessation of in-person visits, while still demanding visits and refusing to believe or respect his daughter's wishes.
We, like the juvenile court, find HHS made reasonable efforts under the circumstances here. We recognize the juvenile court and HHS attempted to use virtual visits until the father could safely participate in-person, but the father continued to have outbursts and behave inappropriately until the virtual visits were also suspended. Given the child's clearly articulated and reasonable wishes, the father's outbursts at the child, and his threatening and aggressive behavior toward HHS and providers, we conclude the visitation offered was reasonable under the circumstances.
To the extent the father also makes a more general reasonable-efforts challenge as to the services HHS provided, we again agree with the juvenile court. The father's complaint on appeal is that he could not complete certain services. This claim is consistent with the father's behavior and bouts of incarceration throughout the case but fails to recognize these are problems of his own making. He threatened and failed to communicate appropriately with providers, he changed his phone number several times without informing HHS, he was repeatedly incarcerated due to criminal activity, he maintained a volatile and domestically-violent relationship, he sought limited-if any-treatment before incarceration, and he behaved inappropriately with workers and the child. Despite this, HHS attempted to maintain contact and continued to offer services where possible. The father is owed no relief on his reasonable-efforts challenge claim.
B. Statutory Elements
The father also challenges the statutory elements supporting termination. He does not contest the adjudication, age, or time-of-removal elements for either ground for termination.
For section 232.116(1)(f), the only substantive argument made by the father concerns HHS's efforts toward reunification, which is not a strict statutory element but is part of the State's burden of proof in a termination. See C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 493 ("The State must show reasonable efforts as a part of its ultimate proof the child cannot be safely returned to the care of a parent."). To the extent the father briefly references an element of the ground for termination concerning whether the child could safely return to his care, he testified he could not presently care for her, and he was incarcerated with no track record of stability or sobriety in the community that could support him caring for himself, let alone the child. We thus affirm under section 232.116(1)(f). See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012) ("When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we may affirm the juvenile court's order on any ground we find supported by the record.").
AFFIRMED.