IN THE INTEREST OF D.W., E.W., A.W., and T.W., Minor Children, V.W., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-887 / 06-1468
Filed November 16, 2006
IN THE INTEREST OF D.W., E.W., A.W., and T.W.,
Minor Children,
V.W., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, John G. Mullen,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children.
AFFIRMED.
Timothy Schemmel, Assistant Public Defender, Muscatine, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Gary Allison, County Attorney, and Korie L. Shippee, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Sharon Halstoos, Cedar Rapids, for mother.
Arlene Poock, Muscatine, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children. He
contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and
convincing evidence and that the State failed to make reasonable efforts to
reunify him with the children. We review his claims de novo. In re C.H., 652
N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 2002).
Of the four children involved, one is under the age of three and three are
four years of age or older. The father’s parental rights were terminated pursuant
to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(f), (h), and (l) (2005).
We need only find
termination proper under one ground to affirm. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274,
276 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
He does not dispute the first three elements of
sections 232.116(1)(f) (child four or older, adjudicated CINA, out of the home
twelve of the last eighteen months) and 232.116(1)(h) (child three or younger, out
of home six of last twelve months, adjudicated CINA) have been met. Instead,
he contends the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the
children cannot be returned to his care as provided in section 232.102. See Iowa
Code §§ 232.116(1)(f)(4), 232.116(1)(h)(4). A child cannot be returned to the
parent under Iowa Code section 232.102 if by doing so the child would be
exposed to any harm amounting to grounds for a new child in need of assistance
adjudication.
We conclude the children cannot be returned to the father’s care. The
father has a lengthy history of criminal activity and substance abuse. The father
has maintained his sobriety for a significant period only while incarcerated. He
was incarcerated at the time these children were removed. He completed drug
3
treatment while incarcerated, but relapsed shortly after his release in September
2005. The father sought treatment in November 2005, but was unsuccessful.
He completed treatment in April 2006 and claims to now be sober. However, the
future can be gleaned by his past performance. See In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660,
662 (Iowa 2000). His prognosis for future sobriety is not good, as he testified at
the termination hearing that his relapse in the fall of 2005 was due to “too much
going on, too much pressure . . . .” In order to return the children to the father’s
care, more time would be needed to show he is committed to his sobriety.
However, the children should not be forced to endlessly await their father’s
maturity. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000). While the law requires a
“full measure of patience with troubled parents who attempt to remedy a lack of
parenting skills,” this patience has been built into the statutory scheme of chapter
232.
Id.
The children have been removed from their father’s care for the
statutorily required time and are doing well in foster care.
Termination is
appropriate.
We also conclude the father has failed to preserve error on the issue of
whether reasonable efforts were made to reunify him with his children.
A
challenge to the sufficiency of services should be raised at the removal or review
hearing or when the services are offered. In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807
(Iowa Ct. App. 1994). Because the father did not raise the lack of reasonable
efforts at the proper time, we decline to address the issue.
AFFIRMED.
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.
