IN THE INTEREST OF D.M., Minor Child, J.M., Father, Appellant, R.E., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-043 / 06-2101
Filed February 14, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF D.M.,
Minor Child,
J.M., Father,
Appellant,
R.E., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Louise Jacobs,
District Associate Judge.
A mother and father appeal from the order terminating their parental
rights. AFFIRMED.
Jared C. Harmon, Des Moines, for appellant father.
Samantha J. Kain of Handley, Block, Lamberti, Zinno & Gocke, P.C.,
Ankeny, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Corey McClure,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Michael Sorci of the Youth Law Center, Des Moines, for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Mahan, JJ.
2
HUITINK, J.
Mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights. Both
contend termination was not in the child’s best interests. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Rachelle gave birth to D.M. in March 2003. D.M. has been the subject of
a Child in Need of Assistance (CINA) proceeding since December 2005 when
both parents tested positive for methamphetamine. John, D.M.’s father, blamed
the test result on a neighbor who allegedly put the methamphetamine in his food.
D.M was removed from the home on December 12, 2005, and placed with
his maternal aunt and uncle. D.M. has remained with his aunt and uncle since
the removal. D.M. was adjudicated a child in need of assistance on February 16,
2006, after both parents stipulated there was a factual basis for adjudication
pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) (parents’ failure to exercise care in
supervising child) and (n) (parents’ drug abuse results in child not receiving
adequate care) (2005).
A dispositional hearing occurred on March 30, 2006. The court ordered
services to continue in order to assist the parents in addressing their mental
health and substance abuse issues. These services included in-home services,
substance abuse evaluations, psychosocial evaluations of the parents, drug
screens, visitation, and bus tokens.
After months of little to no efforts by the parents, the State filed a petition
for termination of parental rights on October 4, 2006. The court terminated the
parental rights of both Rachelle and John on December 11, 2006. The district
court terminated John’s parental rights pursuant to sections 232.116(1)(d) (child
3
CINA for neglect, circumstances continue despite receipt of services) and (h)
(child is three or younger, child CINA, removed from home for six of last twelve
months, and child cannot be returned home). The court terminated Rachelle’s
parental rights pursuant to sections 232.116(1) (d), (h), and (l) (child CINA,
parent has substance abuse problem, child cannot be returned home within a
reasonable time).
Both parents appeal, claiming the court erred in determining termination of
parental rights was in D.M.’s best interests.
II. Standard of Review
We review the termination of parental rights de novo. In re D.G., 704
N.W.2d 454, 457 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005). The grounds for termination must be
proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa
2006). Our first and primary concern is the best interests of the child. Iowa R.
App. P. 6.14(6)(o); D.G., 704 N.W.2d at 457.
III. Merits
Both Rachelle and John waive any claim of error concerning the statutory
grounds for termination by failing to raise such claims on appeal. See Iowa R.
App. P. 6.14(1)(c). Therefore, we affirm the termination of D.M.’s parental rights
on statutory grounds. However, even if the statutory grounds for terminations are
met, the decision to terminate must still be in the child’s best interests. In re
M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994).
Rachelle has not had a stable residence or stable employment since the
beginning of the CINA proceedings. She has a history of substance abuse and
has done little to address the problem in the year since D.M. was removed. Her
4
participation in drug screenings has been wholly inconsistent. At the termination
hearing, Rachelle stated that she had made arrangements to begin substance
abuse treatment, but she had not yet begun treatment. She also testified that
she used methamphetamine one week prior to the termination hearing. Rachelle
has a mental health diagnosis of depression, but chooses not to take the
prescribed medication to address the issue.
John has not had a stable residence or stable employment since the
beginning of the CINA proceedings.
He has not been involved in parenting
classes. He has not consistently participated in drug screenings. He admits that
he was not forthright with substance abuse evaluators and this led to an initial
delay in offered services. Once drug treatment services were offered, he did not
participate until he was arrested in August 2006 on drug related charges. At the
time of the termination hearing, John was incarcerated at the Fort Des Moines
Correctional Facility. He has been clean and sober since he was arrested and
placed in the custody of the Iowa Department of Corrections.
This court is
unable to determine whether his substance abuse problem has been resolved
because it is unknown whether he will be able to maintain sobriety once he is
released from custody. He expected to be discharged on January 4, 2007.
Both parents have been inconsistent in visitation; they often arrived late,
left early, or did not show up at all. Neither parent was able to have D.M. placed
with them at the time of the termination hearing.
In determining the best interests of the child, we look to the child’s longrange and immediate interests. In re J.J.S., Jr., 628 N.W.2d 25, 28 (Iowa Ct.
App. 2001). “Insight for the determination of a child’s long-range best interests
5
can be gleaned from ‘evidence of the parent’s past performance for that
performance may be indicative of the quality of the future care that parent is
capable of providing.’” In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 2000) (quoting In
re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981)). We have long recognized that
parents with chronic and unresolved substance abuse problems clearly present a
danger to their children. In re J.K., 495 N.W.2d 108, 113 (Iowa 1993). When the
issue is parental drug addiction, we consider the treatment history of the parent
to determine the likelihood that the parent will be in a position to parent in the
foreseeable future.
In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998).
“Where the parent has been unable to rise above the addiction and experience
sustained sobriety in a noncustodial setting, and establish the essential support
system to maintain sobriety, there is little hope of success in parenting.” Id. The
record gives this court no reason to believe either parent will be in a stable, drugfree environment within a reasonable period of time.
D.M. should not be forced to endlessly await the maturity of his parents.
See In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Iowa 1987) (“The crucial days of childhood
cannot be suspended while parents experiment with ways to face up to their own
problems.”).
He is an adoptable child.
Pre-adoptive parents have been
identified, and they have had a significant relationship with D.M. since February
2006. D.M. deserves a permanent and stable home with loving parents who are
able to provide proper care and supervision. See In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d at 801
(Cady, J. concurring) (“A child’s safety and the need for a permanent home are
now the primary concerns when determining a child's best interests.”).
6
Based on our de novo review of the record, we conclude termination is in
D.M.’s best interests. We affirm the trial court’s decision terminating John’s and
Rachelle’s parental rights concerning D.M.
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.
