IN THE INTEREST OF B.B., Minor Child, D.J., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-942 / 06-1654
Filed December 13, 2006
IN THE INTEREST OF B.B.,
Minor Child,
D.J., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Amanda Potterfield,
Judge.
D.J. appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Dawn Wilson, Cedar Rapids, for appellant father.
Michael Lindeman, Cedar Rapids, for mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Rebecca Belcher,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Deborah Skelton, Walford, for minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Zimmer, JJ.
2
HUITINK, P.J.
D.J. appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights
concerning his child, B.B. He contends the State failed to prove the grounds for
termination of his parental rights by clear and convincing evidence and that the
State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify him with B.B. We review D.J.’s
claims de novo. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
D.J.’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code sections
232.116(1)(h) (2005) (child is three or younger, adjudicated a child in need of
assistance, child removed from home for twelve of the last sixteen months) and
232.116(1)(l) (child adjudicated a child in need of assistance, parent has
substance abuse problem, child cannot be returned home within a reasonable
time). When the trial court terminates on more than one statutory ground, we
need only find termination is proper on one ground. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63,
64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999).
We find clear and convincing evidence supports termination of D.J.’s
parental rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(l).
B.B.’s initial removal,
adjudication as a child in need of assistance, placement, and court-ordered
services were all predicated on parental substance abuse. Although D.J. was
ordered to complete a substance abuse evaluation and treatment as part of the
case plan, he had failed to do so as of the termination hearing. The termination
record indicates that, despite the provision of a variety of services intended to
facilitate reunification, D.J. repeatedly failed drug tests and was incarcerated on
drug related charges.
3
A parent’s failure to follow the Iowa Department of Human Services’ plan
“can be considered evidence of the parent’s attitude toward recognizing and
correcting the problems which resulted in the loss of custody.” In re J.L.P., 449
N.W.2d 349, 352 (Iowa 1989).
“While we recognize the law requires a ‘full
measure of patience with troubled parents who attempt to remedy a lack of
parenting skills,’ Iowa has built this patience into the statutory scheme of Iowa
Code chapter 232.” In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 494 (quoting In re D.A., Jr., 506
N.W.2d 478, 479 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993)). B.B. “should not be forced to endlessly
await the maturity of [his] parents.” In re C.L.H., 500 N.W.2d 449, 453 (Iowa
1993) (citing In re T.D.C., 336 N.W.2d 738, 744 (Iowa 1983)). A child should not
be forced to suffer “the parentless limbo” of foster care. In re J.P., 499 N.W.2d
334, 339 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993).
We, like the trial court, conclude D.J.’s failure to address his substance
abuse issues and poor prognosis for recovery from substance abuse preclude
B.B.’s safe return to parental custody within a reasonable time. We accordingly
affirm on this issue.
D.J. correctly notes that the State is required to “make every reasonable
effort to return the child to the child’s home as quickly as possible consistent with
the best interests of the child.” Iowa Code § 232.102(7); In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d
at 493.
This requirement involves providing “services to a parent before
termination proceedings can be instituted.” In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147
(Iowa 2002). “Reasonable efforts are aimed at both preventing and eliminating
the need for removal.” Id. “[W]hat constitutes reasonable services varies based
upon the requirements of each individual case.”
Id.
“Generally, in making
4
reasonable efforts to provide services, the State’s focus is on services to improve
parenting.” Id. “[I]t is the parent’s responsibility to demand services if they are
not offered prior to the termination hearing.” In re H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d 675, 679
(Iowa Ct. App. 1997). “[V]oicing complaints regarding the adequacy of services
to a social worker is not sufficient.” In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d at 148. “A parent
must inform the juvenile court of such challenge.” Id.
The record indicates D.J. was provided with a variety of services to
facilitate reunification with B.B. These services included:
Supervision of visits;
Relative placement;
Parenting skills;
Paternity testing;
Substance abuse treatment and testing;
Psychological evaluation for [D.J.]; and,
Halfway house placements for both parents.
There is no indication in the record that D.J. ever objected to the services he was
provided or that he requested any additional services. Therefore, we find that he
did not preserve error on this issue. For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm
the trial court’s order terminating D.J.’s parental rights concerning his child, B.B.
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.
