IN THE INTEREST OF L.T. and N.T., Minor Children, K.J.T., Mother, Appellant, L.W.T., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-507 / 09-0680
Filed July 2, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF L.T. and N.T.,
Minor Children,
K.J.T., Mother,
Appellant,
L.W.T., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel Block,
District Associate Judge.
A mother and father appeal from the juvenile court order terminating their
parental rights to two children. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Michael H. Bandy of Bandy Law Office, Waterloo, for appellant mother.
Tammy L. Banning of Tammy L. Banning, P.L.C., Waterloo, for appellant
father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathryn S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Kathleen Hahn,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Timothy Baldwin, Waterloo, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Miller, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
Krista and Lance, the parents of Logan and Natasha, appeal from the
juvenile court order terminating their parental rights. Krista contends the court
erred in terminating her parental rights. Lance contends the court erred in finding
clear and convincing evidence supports the statutory grounds for termination
cited by the court. We affirm on both appeals.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The children came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human
Services in April of 2008, when the department received information that caused
concerns of possible drug use by the parents, inadequate supervision of the
children, domestic violence, and physical violence. A child abuse investigation
resulted in an April 29 confirmed report for “denial of critical care—failure to
provide proper supervision,” and the parents’ placement on the child abuse
registry. The court ordered the children removed in late April and found them to
be in need of assistance as defined in Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(n) (2007)1, in
mid-May. The court placed the children in the department’s custody for relative
placement. The court continued the relative placement in its July dispositional
order.
In early October, the parents and department agreed to modify the
children’s placement to place them with another relative.
Following a permanency hearing in late October, the court found that
returning the children to the parents at that time remained contrary to the welfare
of the children “because of the parents’ history of lack of safe and stable
1
A child is in need of assistance if not receiving adequate care because of a parent’s
“mental capacity or condition, imprisonment, or drug or alcohol abuse.”
3
residence, mental illness, domestic violence, and other instability and supervision
concerns.”
However, the court deferred permanency for an additional six
months, finding “a substantial likelihood exists that with continued efforts by the
parents, the children can be returned to their parents’ care” within that time.
Following a final permanency hearing in mid-December, the court issued
its permanency order on December 22. The court detailed all the reasonable
efforts made by the department and the services offered to the parents. It found:
Despite the offer and receipt of these services, the parents have
not initiated themselves in services, have not complied with
requests for random drug testing, have not maintained safe and
suitable housing for themselves or the children, and have not
demonstrated their ability to meet the needs for the children.
Further, the parents continue to maintain a chaotic and unstable
lifestyle.
The court directed the State to file petitions to terminate both parents’ rights to
the children.
In January of 2009 the State petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights
under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(e), (h), and (k) (2009).
A contested
hearing was held in February, and the court issued its order on April 30,
terminating both parents’ rights under sections 232.116(1)(e) and (h). The court
found clear and convincing evidence supported both statutory grounds and
termination was in the best interests of the children. Both parents appeal.
II. Scope and Standards of Review.
Our review of termination-of-parental-rights proceedings is de novo. In re
J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006). We review the facts and the law and
adjudicate rights anew. In re H.G., 601 N.W.2d 84, 85 (Iowa 1999). We give
4
weight to the juvenile court’s factual findings but are not bound by them. In re
E.H., III, 578 N.W.2d 243, 248 (Iowa 1998).
The parent-child relationship is constitutionally protected.
Quilloin v.
Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 98 S. Ct. 549, 554, 54 L. Ed. 2d 511, 519 (1978);
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 233, 92 S. Ct. 1526, 1542, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 35
(1972). When the juvenile court terminates a parent’s rights, we affirm if clear
and convincing evidence supports the termination under the cited statutory
provision. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). The State has
the burden of proving the allegations by clear and convincing evidence. In re
D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359, 361 (Iowa 2002). “Clear and convincing evidence” is
evidence leaving “no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the
conclusion drawn from it.” Id. (quoting Raim v. Stancel, 339 N.W.2d 621, 624
(Iowa Ct. App. 1983)). If the juvenile court terminates parental rights on multiple
statutory grounds, we may affirm if any ground is supported by clear and
convincing evidence. See In re R.R.K., 544 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa Ct. App.
1995).
III. Merits.
A.
Father.
The father contends the court erred in finding “sufficient
grounds” exist to terminate his parental rights. He asserts the “evidence verified”
that he maintained significant and meaningful contact with the children, that the
children could be returned to his custody, and that they could be returned to
parental custody within a reasonable time.
From our review of the record, we find clear and convincing evidence that
5
the children could not be returned to the father’s care at the time of the
termination hearing. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h). The picture the father
paints of himself and the family’s circumstances in his petition on appeal is not
supported by the record. The parents had no appropriate residence where the
children could stay.
The parents were staying with friends in the friends’
apartment, but without the knowledge or consent of the landlord. They have to
sneak into the apartment to avoid the landlord finding out. The father had not
provided drug screens when requested, and one specimen was diluted. Until
shortly before the termination proceedings, the father was not consistent in
exercising visitation. The domestic violence between the father and mother was
still a concern. Dan Gates, a counselor who worked with the couple, stopped
seeing them and stated:
I do not believe that couples counseling is effective or even safe for
them at this time. They each have many mental health problems
that they are not addressing at the present time and this makes it
likely that domestic violence will return and be worse. This makes it
very dangerous for the children and I would not subject them to that
danger.
(Emphasis added.) Children cannot be returned to a parent’s care if to do so
would subject them to some harm that would support finding them in need of
assistance. See Iowa Code §§ 232.116(1)(h)(4); 232.102(5)(a)(2). A threat of
probable harm will justify terminating parental rights, and the perceived harm
need not be the same as the one that supported the child’s removal. In re M.M.,
483 N.W.2d 812, 814 (Iowa 1992). Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the
father’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h).
6
B. Mother. The mother contends summarily that “the district court erred
in terminating” her parental rights.2 Her statement of material facts relates that
the children “were initially removed from the home of their mother due to
concerns involving possible parental drug abuse, a lack of parental supervision of
the children, domestic violence in the home, physical abuse, and unsanitary
conditions in the home.” In addition, “During the termination hearing, evidence
was presented as set out on pages 3-4 of the court’s termination order of April
30, 2009.” The only legal authority cited stands for the general propositions that
our review is de novo, we are not bound by the court’s findings, and our primary
concern is the children’s best interests.
From our review of the record, we find clear and convincing evidence
supports terminating the mother’s parental rights on both statutory grounds cited
by the court. We agree with the court’s conclusion concerning best interests.
We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
2
The Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.751 instructions for completing the petition
Form 4 provide: “The issue statement should be concise in nature setting forth specific
legal questions. General conclusions, such as ‘the trial court’s ruling is not supported by
law or the facts’ are not acceptable.” (Emphasis added.) The mother’s issue statement
is an even-less-detailed general conclusion than the example in the instructions. It
provides no guidance for our review.
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.
