Opinion
No. 6-175 / 05-1974
Filed March 15, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Carol L. Coppola, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two children. AFFIRMED.
Craig S. Long of Oliver Law Firm, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jess Vilsack, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Aaron Ginkens of Ginkens Law Firm, P.L.C., West Des Moines, for appellee.
Kimberly Ayotte of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, for minor children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Billie appeals the termination of his parental rights to Billie III, born in 1996, and Dalton, born in 2001. He essentially concedes that the State proved the grounds for termination on which the district court relied. See Iowa Code §§ 232.116(1)(f) (2005) (requiring proof, in part, that children cannot be returned to the custody of their parents), ( l) (requiring proof, in part, of a severe chronic substance abuse problem). His appeal is premised on certain provisions that allow the court to defer termination. See Iowa Code §§ 232.104(2)(b), 232.116(2), (3); In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). Specifically, he contends: (1) termination was not in the children's best interests, (2) termination was not proper because the children were placed with a relative, and (3) termination was not proper because the children shared a close bond with him. We will address these related contentions together, reviewing the record de novo.
The children were removed from Billie's care after he was discovered in possession of "methamphetamine, marijuana, and a side of mushrooms." Billie was on probation for another crime and his possession of these drugs resulted in revocation of his probation. He was jailed for ninety days.
After his release, Billie did not give the Department of Human Services any urine samples to facilitate monitoring of his drug use. Indeed, he only gave the Department a single urine sample in the fourteen months following the children's removal, and that sample tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana.
Billie also did not complete substance abuse treatment as offered by the Department. When asked if he believed treatment could benefit him, he answered, "No." When asked how his methamphetamine use had affected his life, he stated, "I see no impact." And, when asked if he would go through therapy at all, he responded, "I don't see the need for it."
Billie's contact with his children was minimal. The Department afforded him supervised visits for one hour per week. That visitation was curtailed approximately two months before the termination hearing because Billie, in his words, "became upset," and "made a remark" that he "probably shouldn't" have.
The children, who primarily lived with their maternal grandparents after they were removed from their father's care, appeared to have thrived in that environment. A Department report noted that Dalton was initially "very aggressive, hitting, throwing, and kicking to the extent that his worker requested a psychiatric evaluation to rule out any disorders." In his grandparents' care, he showed "improvements in his behavior." Similarly, Billie III showed symptoms associated with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but his behaviors stabilized in the care of his grandparents.
As for the children's bond with their father, the record reveals Dalton was initially "attached" to him. In later visits, he showed signs of confusion. Billie III's reaction to his parents, according to his therapist, was "neutral." When he was asked to draw a picture of his family, he included his brother, grandparents, and uncle, but not his parents. When talking about his parents with his therapist, he never identified visits with either of them as a highlight of his week.
A therapist who supervised visits between Billie and his children testified a delay in termination would not assist Billie in reunifying with them. She noted that Billie had "not participated in any services since the children's removal" and "[s]hould the children be returned they would be subject again to an unsafe environment." She opined that termination of Billie's parental rights was in the children's best interests, notwithstanding their placement with relatives.
A Department caseworker seconded the visitation therapist's opinion. She testified, "I don't believe that [Billie] understands that his kids have gone through a great deal, and that [Billie III] does have a mental health diagnosis that needs to be addressed appropriately."
Based on this record, we agree with the district court that termination of Billie's parental rights to Billie III and Dalton was in the children's best interests, and a deferral of termination was not warranted.