IN THE INTEREST OF J.N.H., Minor child, M.B., Mother, Appellant, A.H., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-516 / 06-0829
Filed July 26, 2006
IN THE INTEREST OF J.N.H.,
Minor child,
M.B., Mother,
Appellant,
A.H., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Keokuk County, Lucy J. Gamon,
District Associate Judge.
Two parents appeal from the termination of their parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Leslie D. Lamping of Day, Meeker, Lamping, Schlegel & Salazar,
Washington, for appellant father.
Edward M. Conrad of Conrad Law Office, Sigourney, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, and John Schroeder, County Attorney, for appellee State.
Joel Yates of Clements Law Firm, Oskaloosa, guardian ad litem for minor
child.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
HECHT, J.
Misty and Art are the biological parents of Jasmine, who was born in 2005.
Jasmine was removed from their custody by the Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS) when she was twelve-days old due to her parents’ ongoing drug
abuse. At the time of her removal, Jasmine tested positive for amphetamine and
methamphetamine. Shortly thereafter, Jasmine was found to be a child in need
of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(o) (2005) based on
the presence of drugs in her body. DHS requested that Misty and Art submit to
services and undergo random drug testing. On March 23, 2006, the State filed a
petition seeking to terminate Art’s and Misty’s parental rights.
Following a
hearing, the court granted the petition and terminated Art’s rights under section
232.116(1)(h) and Misty’s rights under sections 232.116(1)(h) and (g). Misty and
Art both appeal from this ruling.
We review termination orders de novo. In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824
(Iowa 1991). While the district court terminated the parental rights on more than
one statutory ground, we will affirm if at least one ground has been proved by
clear and convincing evidence. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct.
App. 1995). Our primary concern in termination proceedings is the best interests
of the child. In re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981).
With regard to Misty, upon our careful de novo review, we conclude
termination was appropriate under section 232.116(1)(g), which requires a
finding that the court has previously terminated the parent’s rights with respect to
another child and that the parent continues to lack the ability or willingness to
respond to services which would correct the situation. Just over a year prior to
3
Jasmine’s birth, Misty’s parental rights to another daughter were terminated.
That case, like this one, was initiated due to the child’s exposure to illegal
substances. In addition, the former termination case presented serious concerns
about Misty’s mental functioning that impaired her ability to supervise the child.
In the case now before the court, social worker Sharon Lehn testified that those
persistent concerns led to Jasmine’s removal and adjudication.
Misty relapsed into drug use in November of 2005. Lehn further testified
that at the time of the termination hearing there was no plan to return Jasmine to
her parents in the next few months and that the parents were still receiving only
supervised visits at that time. Given Misty’s substance abuse history, in addition
to her limited intellectual capabilities and mental health issues 1 , it is apparent that
Misty continues to lack the ability or willingness to respond to services which
would permit her to resume the role of custodial parent.
We conclude Misty has failed to preserve for appellate review her claim
that DHS did not make reasonable efforts to reunify the family. First, the list of
services that were provided to Misty and the family covered nearly one full page
of the juvenile court’s termination order. Moreover, there is no indication in the
record that she ever demanded other, different, or additional services prior to the
termination hearing. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999).
We therefore affirm the termination of her parental rights.
We also conclude the court properly terminated Art’s parental rights under
section 232.116(1)(h). It is readily apparent that Jasmine cannot be returned to
1
Jasmine has been diagnosed with major depressive disorder and continues to take
medication and engage in individual therapy.
4
Art’s custody as contemplated in this statute. As he admitted, Art began using
methamphetamine when he was fifteen-years old, and apparently continued
using through at least November and December of 2005, when he tested positive
for the use of cocaine and methamphetamine. 2
Art’s drug relapses were
significant because they followed on the heels of an intensive substance abuse
treatment program, and occurred while he was receiving services at a transitional
housing program. He has been in and out of jail for much of his life, mostly on
drug-related charges.
There is no reasonable likelihood Art will be able to
resume and maintain sobriety such that he could resume the role of Jasmine’s
custodial parent in the near future. We therefore affirm the termination of his
parental rights to Jasmine.
AFFIRMED.
2
Art’s drug tests were “at the highest testable category,” which indicated his use was
more than just an isolated incident.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
