IN THE INTEREST OF Q.S., Z.S., M.A.B., and J.K., Minor Children, A.L.S., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-521 / 06-1653
Filed August 8, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF
Q.S., Z.S., M.A.B., and J.K.,
Minor Children,
A.L.S., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Louise Jacobs,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals from a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights
to three children. AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey Mains, Des Moines, for appellant-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jennifer Galloway,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Bryan Tingle, Indianola, for mother.
Kayla Stratton, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
MILLER, J.
Anthony is the father of Joshua, Zoe, and Quentin (“the children”), who
were eleven, six, and four years of age respectively at the time of a termination of
parental rights hearing. In an October 2006 order the juvenile court terminated
Anthony’s parental rights to the children pursuant to Iowa Code sections
232.116(1)(b) (abandonment, and desertion), (d) (child a child in need of
assistance (CINA) for physical or sexual abuse (or neglect), circumstances
continue despite receipt of services), (f) (child four or older, adjudicated CINA,
removed from home twelve of last eighteen months, cannot be returned home),
and (g) (child adjudicated CINA, parents’ rights to another child were terminated,
parent lacks ability or willingness to respond to services, additional period of
rehabilitation would not correct situation) (2005). Anthony appeals. 1
We review termination proceedings de novo. Although we
are not bound by them, we give weight to the trial court’s findings of
fact, especially when considering credibility of witnesses. The
primary interest in termination proceedings is the best interests of
the child. To support the termination of parental rights, the State
must establish the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section
232.116 by clear and convincing evidence.
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (citations omitted).
Anthony claims the juvenile court erred by finding the State proved the
statutory elements of the provisions pursuant to which the court terminated his
parental rights. We find the State proved by clear and convincing evidence the
elements of at least three of the four provisions relied on by the juvenile court.
1
The juvenile court’s order also terminated the parental rights of the children’s mother,
Katherina, to the children and to her ten-year-old daughter, Maryanna, and Katherina
has not appealed. In addition, the order declined to terminate the parental rights of
Maryanna’s father, and the State has not appealed from that part of the order.
3
This case involves a long and sad history. One or more of the children
were previously adjudicated CINA in March 1998, in a case later closed in
October 2000, and again in January 2001, in a case later closed in August 2002.
Anthony and Katherina have been offered, and to the limited extent they have
been willing have received, services since 1997. In April 2006 their parental
rights were terminated to a child born in August 2004 and removed from their
custody in August 2005.
The CINA case that led to this termination proceeding was filed in
December 2003, and the children and Maryanna were adjudicated CINA
pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(2)(c)(2) (2003) in February 2004.
Involved persons had to that time believed that Anthony was the father of
Maryanna, Zoe, and Quentin, and not the father of Joshua. During the case it
was determined that Anthony was Joshua’s father, but was not Maryanna’s
father.
The children were initially left in the custody of their parents, but in August
2004 were removed and placed in the custody of the Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS) for placement in foster care. Joshua was placed in foster care,
then hospitalized for psychiatric problems resulting from long-term abuse and
neglect, next returned to foster care, then again hospitalized, and in November
2004 was placed in a psychiatric medical institution for children, where he
remained until again placed in foster care shortly before the late August 2006
termination of parental rights hearing. Zoe and Quentin were placed in foster
care, returned to Katherina and Anthony in February 2005, and then were again
4
removed and placed in foster care in mid-August 2005, where they remained at
the time of the late August 2006 termination hearing.
Since January 1998 one or more of the children have been the victims of
fourteen “founded” incidents of child abuse or neglect, in seven of which Anthony
has been the perpetrator.
In March 2004 Anthony was ordered to submit urine samples for testing
for suspected drug abuse. He submitted to testing in February 2005, when he
tested negative, and in May of 2005, when he tested positive for marijuana use.
During the one and one-half years immediately prior to the termination hearing
he otherwise failed or refused to be tested on thirty-two occasions.
During the CINA proceeding Joshua had reported that his parents used
drugs. At the termination hearing Katherina acknowledged her use of marijuana
and methamphetamine, and testified that Anthony used as well. At the time of
the termination hearing Anthony was facing a recent felony forgery charge.
When arrested on that charge he stated he had committed the crime in order to
get caught so he could get treatment for his drug addiction. Despite all this
overwhelming evidence of his drug abuse, Anthony throughout these juvenile
proceedings has refused to provide ordered drug screens, obtain a substance
abuse evaluation, and follow any recommended treatment.
Anthony has throughout these proceedings failed or refused to follow
through with required mental health evaluation and treatment.
A lack of
adequate and appropriate housing has for years been a problem for Anthony and
Katherina, and during the periods of time leading up to the termination hearing
5
they were either homeless or dependent upon a barely-known acquaintance for
shelter.
In her report to the juvenile court shortly before the termination hearing,
the DHS case worker reported, in part:
Anthony [ ] and Katherina [ ] had been offered numerous
services by the [DHS] over a period of off and on greater than ten
years. There does not appear to be a service available by the
[DHS] that has not been offered to the parents. Additionally
[Anthony] and [Katherina] have continually either failed to comply
with services, as evident throughout the most recent case, or
successfully completed them only to re-enter the system a short
time later with the same issues.
We fully agree with this statement. Based on the evidence in the record we find
the State proved by clear and convincing evidence the statutory grounds for
termination of Anthony’s parental rights to the children pursuant to Iowa Code
sections 232.116(1)(d), (f), and (g) (2005). We need not decide whether the
State also proved section 232.116(1)(b) abandonment, desertion, or both. See
In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999) (“When the juvenile court
terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we need only find
grounds to terminate under one of the sections cited by the juvenile court to
affirm.”).
Anthony claims termination of his parental rights is not in the best interests
of the children. Even if statutory grounds for termination are met, the decision to
terminate must still be in the best interest of a child. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398,
400 (Iowa 1994).
When the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights exist, the
needs of the children are generally promoted by termination. In re L.M.F., 490
N.W.2d 66, 68 (Iowa 1992). “A child’s safety and the need for a permanent
6
home are now the primary concerns when determining a child’s best interests.”
In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 801 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially).
Anthony has unaddressed histories of child abuse and neglect, drug
abuse, mental problems, unemployment, and lack of stable housing. Because of
his inability or unwillingness to address the many issues that prevent him from
appropriate parenting, the children cannot be returned to him at the present time
or within the reasonably foreseeable future and it is unlikely they could ever be
returned to him. All three children have suffered from abuse or neglect and from
resulting psychiatric or behavioral disorders. All three need permanency in a
safe, secure, stable home, and need it now. We conclude that termination of
Anthony’s parental rights is in the children’s best interest.
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.
