IN THE INTEREST OF K.L.B. AND D.M.B., Minor Children, D.L.B., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-163 / 07-0164
Filed March 14, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF K.L.B. AND D.M.B.,
Minor Children,
D.L.B., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Gary K.
Anderson, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights to two
children. AFFIRMED.
Scott D. Strait, Council Bluffs, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Matthew W. Wilber, County Attorney and Dawn Eimers,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
William McGinn, Council Bluffs, for appellee mother.
Brian Rhoten, Council Bluffs, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J. and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
VOGEL, P.J.
D.L.B. is the father of K.L.B., who was born in May of 2002, and D.M.B.,
born in February of 2004.
The children and their mother first came to the
attention of authorities in early April 2005 after police officers discovered drugs in
their apartment. On April 19, the children were taken into protective custody, and
later that month the State filed a petition alleging they were in need of assistance
(CINA). Following a hearing, the court found the children to be CINA pursuant to
Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2), (e), and (n) (2005).
On June 8, 2006, after mother’s drug use continued and father largely
absented himself from the children’s lives, the State filed a petition to terminate
both of their parental rights. Following a hearing on the petition, the juvenile
court granted the State’s request and terminated D.L.B’s parental rights under
sections 232.116(1)(b), (e), (f), (h), and (l). He appeals from this order. The
mother did not appeal, and we do not address the termination of her parental
rights in this opinion.
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 children. In re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981).
Upon our de novo review of the record, we concur in the juvenile court’s
judgment that father’s parental rights should be terminated pursuant to sections
3
232.116(1)(f) and (h), which require the State to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the children cannot be returned to their parents’ custody. 1 First,
D.L.B. has been largely absent from their lives for eighteen months. He thus has
not shown the skills, ability, or desire to raise two children in a safe and nurturing
environment.
At the time of the termination hearing D.L.B., who has had a
significant drug problem himself, was living with a woman who had recently
relapsed on methamphetamine, and who had lost custody of her children due to
her drug addiction. Such a relationship in the environment of the children is not
conducive to the children’s safety. In addition, although the Department of
Human Services (DHS) was clearly concerned about his drug use, D.L.B. did not
complete an ordered substance abuse evaluation until November of 2006 and he
did not enter extended outpatient substance abuse treatment as recommended.
Furthermore, we conclude termination of D.L.B.’s parental rights is in the
best interests of the children. See In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994)
(recognizing that even if the statutory requirements for termination of parental
rights are met, the decision to terminate must still be in the best interests of the
children). The children have virtually no bond with D.L.B., which is not surprising
considering his protracted absence from their lives. In fact, the evidence showed
the children’s strong bond with their foster parents. To re-introduce D.L.B. into
their lives would only cause confusion, uncertainty, and the potential for
adjudicatory harm to the children.
1
We note that in his petition on appeal D.L.B. does not contest the termination under
sections 232.116(1)(b), (e), or (l). Thus, we consider them to have been waived and
affirm on those grounds. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(1)(c).
4
Finally, we reject D.L.B.’s contention that DHS failed to “provide sufficient
reunification services under the facts and circumstances of this case.”
The
numerous orders entered throughout this case were largely ignored by D.L.B.
He was offered many services to assist him, had he been seriously motivated to
provide the children a safe and nurturing home. As the State notes, D.L.B.’s halfhearted participation only began after the filing of the termination petition. The
children simply cannot wait for D.L.B. to someday respond to the services
offered, in hopes of eventually becoming a responsible parent. See In re C.K.,
558 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Iowa 1997). The children’s lives and best interests are
paramount.
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.
