IN THE INTEREST OF J.M.A. and J.L.A., Minor Children, E.L.A., Father, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-780 / 09-1228
Filed October 21, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF J.M.A. and J.L.A.,
Minor Children,
E.L.A., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Constance Cohen,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals the district court’s order terminating his parental rights to
his two children. AFFIRMED.
David Pargulski, Des Moines, for appellant father.
Edward Bull and Jared Harmon of Bull Law Office, P.C., Des Moines, for
appellee mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Stephanie Brown,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Karl Wolle, Des Moines, for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mansfield, JJ.
2
VOGEL, P.J.
A father appeals from the district court’s order terminating his parental
rights to his two children, born in 2003 and 2006, pursuant to Iowa Code sections
232.116(1)(f), (h), and (l) (2009).1 On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of
the evidence, essentially arguing that the children could be returned to his care,
and claims he should have been given more time prior to termination.
We review termination of parental rights de novo. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d
793, 798 (Iowa 2006). In May 2007, the children came to the attention of the
Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) after the younger child burned her
hand on an open heater in the family home.
Although the father agreed to
participate in services, he became hostile with DHS workers and did not follow
through with services.
The children’s health concerns with lice and scabies
continued and the younger child burned her hand a second time. Subsequently,
the children were adjudicated to be children in need of assistance pursuant to
Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2007).
The father was offered services, including mental health and substance
abuse treatment, but again did not follow through with services. In January 2008,
the father received a substance abuse evaluation that recommended treatment.
Subsequent to the evaluation, he failed a drug screen, after which he refused to
participate with substance abuse services. Additionally, that same month, the
father also received an updated mental health evaluation that noted his diagnosis
of explosive disorder and recommended therapy. He attended only two therapy
1
The child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings are ongoing regarding the mother, who
does not appeal.
3
sessions in March and April 2008, after which he refused to participate in any
further mental health services. After abusing the children’s mother while the
children were present in March 2008, the children were removed from the
father’s care. He was later arrested for possession of a controlled substance for
a September 2008 incident. From June 2008 to December 2008, the father did
not exercise visitation with the children.
Since the children’s removal, the father has not progressed past
supervised visitation. During visitations he generally has positive interactions
with the children, but the reports indicate he interacts with the children as a
playmate and has not taken on a parental role, including implementing safety
boundaries. Additionally, he continued to refuse any mental health or substance
abuse services. In March 2009, the children had to be moved to a new foster
home because the father had threatened the children’s foster parents such that
workers were concerned for the children’s and foster parents’ safety. In April and
May 2009, DHS workers reported incidents where the father was hostile and
threatening.
A June 2009 report to the court stated,
[The father] has not participated in any services to remedy his
unstable mental health or substance abuse issues. He has refused
to participate in any substance abuse recommendations and has
not followed through [with] recommendations made in regards to
his mental health. The situation is no different today than when the
children were originally removed from his custody and care in May
2008.
At the July 2009 termination hearing, when the father was asked why he had not
provided any drug screens for DHS, he answered: “Because I’m not willing to
4
work with them.” He was unemployed and admitted that he needed to get a job
before the children could be returned to him.
The father asserts the children could be returned to his care and he
should have been granted additional time. We find his arguments without merit.
We agree with the district court that the father’s “acts and omissions demonstrate
no desire to participate in reunification services other than supervised visitation.”
There is no indication additional time would remedy the situation, especially due
to his refusal to participate with services and his expressed aversion to DHS.
See J.E., 723 N.W.2d at 798 (stating that we look to the parent’s past
performance because it may indicate the quality of care the parent is capable of
providing in the future). “At some point, the rights and needs of the child rise
above the rights and needs of the parents.” In re J.L.W., 570 N.W.2d 778, 781
(Iowa Ct. App. 1997).
Upon our review, we find the district court had clear and convincing
evidence to support termination of the father’s parental rights and termination is
clearly in the children’s best interests. See J.E., 723 N.W.2d at 801 (Cady, J.,
concurring specially) (stating a child’s safety and need for a permanent home are
the defining elements in determining a child’s best interests). Accordingly, 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.
