In the Interest of R.N., B.N., and J.N., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0102
Filed May 8, 2024

IN THE INTEREST OF R.N., B.N., and J.N.,
Minor Children,

J.N., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam D.

Sauer, Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. AFFIRMED.

Cameron M. Sprecher of Sprecher Law Office, P.L.C., Mason City, for

appellant father.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Michelle R. Becker, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Jane M. Wright, Forest City, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor

children.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.
2

BOWER, Chief Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to three children, born

in 2008, 2016, and 2019.1 He claims the State failed to prove the grounds for

termination cited by the juvenile court, termination is not in the children’s best

interests, a six-month extension would eliminate the grounds for termination, and

the court should apply a permissive exception to preclude termination. Upon

review, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

This family most recently came to the attention of the Iowa Department of

Health and Human Services (the department) in mid-2021,2 upon reports of

domestic violence in the home and substance use by the parents. A no-contact

order was entered between the parents. Shortly after they agreed to abstain from

drinking and complete substance-use evaluations, they were arrested for public

intoxication. The father was also arrested for violating the no-contact order. The

children were adjudicated in need of assistance in December but remained in the

family home with the mother.

The children were removed from the mother’s custody in August 2022,

when she appeared for court under the influence of alcohol. The court entered a

review order the next week, noting “[t]here are ongoing concerns with parental

sobriety, condition of the home, ongoing violations of the no-contact order between

parents, and lack of follow through with services.” Specifically with respect to the

1 The mother’s appeal was dismissed as untimely.
2 The family had prior department involvement in 2016, 2019, and 2020, during

which the parents had little follow through with services.
3

father, the court stated, “Father is not employed. He was participating in services

at Prairie Ridge but was recently arrested. He needs to re-engage with treatment

services to address continued struggles with sobriety.”

By early 2023, the department caseworker reported a “tremendous change

in [the] parents,” including engagement in services and better interactions with the

children. The caseworker stated “reunification continues to remain the goal” for

the family. By July, the parents were again living together. They were participating

in treatment services but admitted to drinking alcohol. In August, the caseworker

reported she “d[id] not want to discount the progress [the parents] have made

however concerns remain with their ability to maintain long-term sobriety and

stability.” R.N., who was in high school, was residing with the paternal great

grandparents. The court noted R.N., who was engaging in therapy, “stresses

about her parents and becomes frustrated with their decisions and lack of

progress.” The younger children, B.N. and J.N., were placed together in a different

relative’s home. Doctors opined the children should not be around cigarette smoke

due to their breathing issues, and the department moved visits back to the

provider’s office due to concerns about cigarette smoke in the parents’ home.

The State initiated termination-of-parental-rights proceedings in

September 2023. Subsequently, the parents’ involvement in the case stagnated.

The termination hearing took place in December. The parents did not attend the

hearing. The father spoke to the caseworker earlier that day and stated he

“thought the [children] were best where they were at” because “he knew he couldn’t

meet their needs.” The caseworker testified aside from that communication, the

parents “haven’t had any communication—consistent communication with the
4

department or services or their children for that matter in several months.” The

department and guardian ad litem recommended termination of parental rights.

The court entered an order terminating the father’s parental rights pursuant

to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (f) (2023). The father appeals.

II. Standard of Review

We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. In re

A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 293 (Iowa 2021). Upon our review, our primary

consideration is the best interests of the children, In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798

(Iowa 2006), the defining elements of which are the children’s safety and need for

a permanent home, In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011).

III. Analysis

A. Grounds for Termination. The father challenges both grounds the

juvenile court relied on to terminate his parental rights. “When the juvenile court

terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground,” we may affirm “on

any ground we find supported by the record” evidence. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764,

774 (Iowa 2012). We focus on paragraph (f). Relating to that paragraph, the father

claims the State failed to show by clear and convincing evidence the children could

not be returned safely to his custody at the time of the termination hearing. See

Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f)(4).

The father had a short period of progress in early 2023, when he engaged

in services and had positive interactions with the children. But his progress was

short-lived. As noted, the father discontinued contact with the department. At the

termination hearing, when the caseworker was asked if she received “any

indication” the parents were “making progress toward reunification,” she
5

responded, “Unfortunately, no. It has become over the past three months

increasingly evident that things have gotten worse for them. Any progress that

they had as far as employment or housing or services set up have all [ceased].”

The father acknowledged he continued to struggle with sobriety. As the

caseworker reported, “even with a significant number of supportive services

neither of these parents have been able to demonstrate the ability to meet their

own needs, let alone that of their children.” Based on these and other facts in the

record (including the family’s lengthy history of department involvement), we agree

with the court’s finding the children could not be returned to the father’s custody at

the time of the termination hearing. Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) was satisfied.

B. Best Interests. Termination also must serve the children’s best interests.

See Iowa Code § 232.116(2). When determining best interests, we give primary

weight to “the child[ren]’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term

nurturing and growth of the child[ren], and to the physical, mental and emotional

conditions and needs of the child[ren].” Id. Here, these factors all weigh in favor

of termination. We agree with the juvenile court’s analysis on this point:

All of the children are doing well in their current placements.
[B.N.] has made significant progress in school and [J.N.]’s speech
has greatly improved since removal. This family has a lengthy
history of involvement with the department. Services started in 2016
and lasted for approximately five months. Services were reinitiated
in 2019 and lasted for approximately three months. Since this case
began, the family has received numerous services. Parents were
able to complete SafeCare services. However, parents have not
been able to maintain consistency in services. Parents have been
unable to maintain sobriety and their participation in substance use
and mental health treatment has been inconsistent. . . . In
November, [the father] admitted to the department that he was
struggling with alcohol use. Parents are not consistently meeting
with providers. Parents have not been able to maintain housing and
are both currently unemployed. While there have been short periods
6

of stability and sobriety, parents have been unable to move past
supervised interactions and the children cannot be returned home
today. [The father] has only attend[ed] one interaction since the
beginning of October. Prior to removal, the children were living a
chaotic life filled with instability, parental substance use, and
domestic violence. The children need permanency and their current
homes can provide a stable, healthy, and loving environment.

C. Exception to Termination. The father claims termination is not in the

children’s best interests because he has a “very close bond” with the children.

“Consideration of the parent-child bond is not a part of our best-interests analysis.”

In re E.S., No. 23-0590, 2023 WL 4104126, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. June 21, 2023).

However, section 232.116(3)(c) allows the court to forego termination when

“[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that the termination would be detrimental

to the child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.” The

caseworker testified the father’s visits with the children “greatly declined” in the

months preceding the termination hearing: “since the beginning of October, he has

only had one visit with the kids and that was the Wednesday I think it was before

Thanksgiving. Other than that, he has had no interactions.” Although the record

shows the father and children share a bond, the father has not established

termination of his parental rights will be detrimental to the children.

D. Additional Time. The father requests “an additional six months to work

towards reunification and to show that he is capable of being a father to his [three]

children.” To grant an extension of time for reunification, the court must

“enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes”

providing a basis to determine the child will be able to return to the parent at the

end of the additional six months. Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). When asked

whether she believed the department had “done everything [it] could to assist these
7

parents in getting to a healthy spot in their life,” the caseworker responded, “I do.

I actually think that we’ve actually gone above and beyond for them.” For example,

when the father acknowledged his relapses in fall 2023, the caseworker set forth

the department’s response to “help him regain sobriety”: “[S]ervices as far as

mental health, medication management, substance use, we talked about housing,

getting him to the shelter, those were all offered again. They have been offered

on an ongoing basis, but they were again offered in November.” Unfortunately,

around that time, the father’s engagement in services essentially “stopped.” The

father expressed to service providers he “would like to be able to fight, but [he]

know[s] that [he] can’t do it and it’s not fair to the girls.” On this record, the court

had no basis on which to grant an extension.

We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED.