IN THE INTEREST OF M.L., Minor Child, S.L., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-883 / 07-1719
Filed November 29, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF M.L.,
Minor Child,
S.L., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karla J. Fultz,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Dawn Bowman of Bowman Law Office, Pleasantville, for appellant father.
Edward Bull of Bull Law Office, P.C., Des Moines, for mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Annette Taylor,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Jason Hauser, Des Moines, for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, JJ.
2
ZIMMER, J.
A father appeals from the juvenile court order terminating his parental
rights to his son. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
S.L. is the father and N.R. is the mother of M.L., born in July 2006. 1 N.R.
used marijuana while she was pregnant with M.L., and M.L.’s meconium screen
was positive for THC. A child protective assessment was opened alleging denial
of critical care.
S.L. and N.R. claimed they were victims of Hurricane Katrina and that
FEMA had relocated the family to Iowa; however, this story proved to be untrue.
S.L. and N.R. came to Iowa after being sponsored by a local adoption agency.
The parents reported they intended to give their child up for adoption after he
was born. However, this also proved to be untrue, and the parents used the
adoption agency’s money to purchase supplies for the baby, as well as food and
toys for their dog.
Further investigation revealed the mother had a lengthy
history of involvement with the juvenile court system in Ohio. She has given birth
to six other children who are all in long-term placements or have been adopted.
Following a contested removal hearing on August 18, 2006, M.L. was
placed in foster care.
On August 19, S.L. was arrested and charged with
domestic abuse after abusing N.R. 2
On September 28, 2006, M.L. was
adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA). Following adjudication, the
1
2
The mother has not appealed from the termination of her parental rights.
On November 7, 2006, S.L. entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to probation.
3
parents received a variety of services designed to safely transition the child to
their care. 3
On January 24, 2007, N.R. was arrested and charged with second-degree
criminal mischief and disorderly conduct. 4 On February 20, 2007, a dispositional
review hearing was held, and M.L. remained in foster care due to his mother’s
incarceration and his father’s need for further services.
On July 12, 2007, a permanency hearing was held, and a plan was
entered to return M.L. to his father within thirty days. However, the plan was
suspended after the in-home service provider was notified that the father was
allowing N.R. to have unauthorized contact with M.L., which had been prohibited
due to the mother’s risk of harm to the child.
The State filed a petition to terminate N.R.’s and S.L.’s parental rights on
July 23, 2007. The juvenile court held a termination hearing on September 14,
2007. At the hearing, N.R. consented to the termination of her parental rights;
however, S.L. contested the termination of his parental rights. S.L. admitted that
he had allowed unauthorized contact between M.L. and N.R. on at least three
occasions during his unsupervised visits with his son.
The in-home service
provider testified that prohibiting N.R. from having contact with M.L. during the
unsupervised visits was a crucial part of S.L.’s being able to demonstrate both
insight into what it takes to be a parent and the ability to protect his son. 5 The in-
3
A dispositional hearing was held on November 14, 2006, and M.L.’s placement in foster
care was confirmed due to his parents’ need to access services for their mental health,
substance abuse, and domestic violence.
4
On March 22, 2007, N.R. entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to probation.
5
The in-home service provider testified S.L. told him N.R. was using drugs during the
time when S.L. allowed contact between N.R. and M.L.
4
home service provider and the guardian ad litem agreed that termination of S.L.’s
parental rights was in the child’s best interests.
In an order filed September 25, 2007, the juvenile court terminated N.R.’s
parental rights to M.L. pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(a), (b), (d), (h),
(i), (k), and (l) (2007) and S.L.’s parental rights to M.L. pursuant to sections
232.116(1)(d) (child CINA for physical or sexual abuse or neglect, circumstances
continue despite receipt of services), (h) (child is three or younger, child CINA,
removed from home for six of last twelve months, and child cannot be returned
home), and (i) (child meets definition of CINA, child was in imminent danger,
services would not correct conditions). Only S.L. has appealed.
II. Scope and Standards of Review.
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re R.E.K.F., 698 N.W.2d
147, 149 (Iowa 2005). The grounds for termination must be supported by clear
and convincing evidence. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 661 (Iowa 2000). We are
primarily concerned with the child’s best interests in termination proceedings. In
re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). Even when the statutory
grounds for termination are met, the decision to terminate parental rights must
reflect the child’s best interests. In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994).
When we consider the child’s best interests, we look to his long-range as well as
immediate best interests. In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997).
III. Discussion.
In this appeal, S.L. contends the grounds for termination were not
supported by clear and convincing evidence. Upon our review of the record, we
find no merit in any of the father’s arguments.
5
When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one
statutory ground, we only need to find grounds to terminate under one of the
sections cited by the court in order to affirm the court’s ruling. In re S.R., 600
N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999).
In this case, we choose to focus our
attention on section 232.116(1)(h) (child is three or younger, child CINA,
removed from home for six of last twelve months, and child cannot be returned
home) as the basis for termination.
M.L. is fifteen months old, and he has never been in his father’s custody.
Despite receiving services, S.L. is still not capable of making the decisions
necessary to protect his son. Although S.L. appropriately utilized services for a
period of time, he then allowed unauthorized contact between his son and the
child’s mother. He allowed this contact despite being told on multiple occasions
that he was not to allow contact because of the risks N.R. presented to M.L.
When the service provider confronted S.L. about allowing the unauthorized
contact, S.L. denied that contact had taken place. Later, S.L. admitted he had
allowed such contact even though he knew it was in violation of his unsupervised
visitation expectations.
S.L. has a history of being untruthful. He has a significant criminal history
and has spent at least twelve and one-half years in prison. At the termination
hearing M.L.’s guardian ad litem opined that S.L. had not made any real progress
since this case began. We agree with the juvenile court that S.L. cannot be
trusted to keep his son away from N.R. or another equally inappropriate person.
Placement in the father’s home would be contrary to the child’s welfare. We find
6
clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court’s decision to terminate
S.L.’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h).
Even when the statutory grounds for termination are met, the decision to
terminate parental rights must reflect the child’s best interests. M.S., 519 N.W.2d
at 400. M.L. has been living with foster parents since his removal from the
hospital. The foster parents have provided excellent care to M.L., and M.L. has
formed a definite bond with them.
At the termination hearing, the service
provider testified it is difficult for M.L. to disengage from his foster parents.
It is apparent that serious concerns still exist regarding S.L.’s ability to
protect his son. By continuing to allow M.L. to have contact with N.R. and being
untruthful with his service provider, S.L. has failed to demonstrate his ability to be
a responsible parent. We agree with the juvenile court that “[S.L.] has not shown
a pattern of protecting or doing what is necessary to make [M.L.] his number one
priority.”
The evidence does not support the conclusion that additional time
would allow the child to be returned to his father’s care.
When a parent is incapable of changing to allow the child to return home,
termination is necessary. In re T.T., 541 N.W.2d 552, 557 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
This child deserves stability and permanency, which his father cannot provide. In
re C.D., 509 N.W.2d 509, 513 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993). We agree with the juvenile
court’s finding that termination of S.L.'s parental rights is in the child's best
interests.
IV. Conclusion.
We affirm the juvenile court’s decision to terminate S.L.’s parental rights.
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.
