IN THE INTEREST OF S.M., J.B., III, and E.B., Minor Children, J.D.B., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-257 / 09-0307
Filed May 6, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF S.M., J.B., III, and E.B.,
Minor Children,
J.D.B., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mitchell County, Gregg R.
Rosenbladt, District Associate Judge.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children.
AFFIRMED.
David A. Kuehner of Eggert, Erb & Mulcahy, P.L.C., Charles City, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Mark L. Walk, County Attorney, and Nicholas T. Larson,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
DeDra Schroeder of Schroeder Law Office, Charles City, for mother.
Richard H. Gross of Gross & McPhail, Osage, guardian ad litem for minor
child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Mansfield, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children. He
contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and
convincing evidence. We review this claim de novo. In re K.B., 753 N.W.2d 14,
15 (Iowa 2008).
The children were adjudicated in need of assistance following reports of
substance abuse and domestic violence in the home. Subsequently, founded
child abuse reports concluded the parents had failed to provide proper
supervision because the children were left home without adult supervision while
locked in rooms with no safe exit in case of emergency, and the father had
physically abused the oldest child. The mother, who has not appealed from the
termination order, did not participate in services to reunify her with the children.
The father did avail himself of the services offered, and showed improvement in
his parenting as long as service providers directed his actions. However, the
father has shown little insight on how to parent the children without this direction.
The father’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code
sections 232.116(1)(e) and (f) (2007). We need only find termination proper
under one ground to affirm. In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct. App.
1995). Termination is appropriate under section 232.116(1)(f) where the State
proves by clear and convincing evidence the following:
(1) The child is four years of age or older.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance
pursuant to section 232.96.
3
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the
child's parents for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, or for
the last twelve consecutive months and any trial period at home
has been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that at the present time
the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child's parents as
provided in section 232.102.
The father first argues the State failed to prove “that the trial period at
home was less than thirty days when approximately three months of placement
at home were interrupted only by short stays in foster care.”
Section
232.116(1)(f)(3) requires proof a child has been removed for either (1) twelve of
the last eighteen months or (2) twelve consecutive months with a trial period at
home of less than thirty days.
There is no dispute the children had been
removed from the father’s care for more than twelve of the eighteen months
leading up to termination.
The father also disputes there is clear and convincing evidence the
children cannot be returned to his care. We disagree. Although the father made
progress in his parenting skills, this progress was attributable to the direction of
the service providers. None of these providers recommended the children be
returned to the father’s care, instead indicating the children would be at risk of
harm if returned or left unsupervised with the father for a length of time. It is
likely the father will allow continued contact with the mother despite the danger
she presents to the children. Because the father has not demonstrated he can
safely parent the children without assistance, we conclude the children cannot be
returned to his care.
4
Because the State has proved the grounds for termination by clear and
convincing evidence, we affirm.
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.
