IN THE INTEREST OF E.S., Minor Child, M.S., Father, Appellant, N.S., Mother, Appellant.
from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Brian L.
father and a mother separately appeal the termination of
their parental rights. AFFIRMED ON BOTH
J. Huyser of Rensink Pluim Vogel & Huyser, Orange City,
for appellant father. Timothy J. Kramer of Kramer Law Firm,
PLC, Sioux Center, for appellant mother.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
L. Winterfeld of Winterfeld Law, PLC, Sioux Center, guardian
ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.
DANILSON, CHIEF JUDGE
father and a mother separately appeal from the termination of
their parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(d), (h), and (i) (2018). Because we find clear and
convincing evidence supports termination under paragraph
"h"  and that termination of parental rights is
in the child's best interests, we affirm.
de novo review of the April 2018 termination proceedings,
find the following. The mother has four children. The child
at issue in this appeal, E.S., was born in May 2015. E.S. has
two older siblings; B., age fifteen at the time of
termination, and P., age twelve; and one younger sibling,
E.J.S., born in November 2017 during the underlying
child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) proceedings. The father of
E.S. is also the father of E.J.S.
father is an over-the-road trucker. He has a history of
anxiety and depression and has admitted to prior use of
marijuana. He takes medication for attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
mother works in the service industry. She has acknowledged
using drugs in the past. She has previously been diagnosed
with ADHD, manic-depressive bipolar disorder, and an anxiety
disorder. More recently, the mother was diagnosed with major
depressive disorder, recurrent episode, moderate; generalized
anxiety disorder, unspecified trauma; and a stress-related
September 7, 2016, child protective services received
allegations of physical abuse of P., then ten years old, who
had a black right eye, a scratch from his left eye to his
nose, bruising by both ears, a swollen jaw, circular bruises
on his arms, and bruises on his thigh and chest. P.'s
explanation for the injuries was inconsistent with the nature
of his injuries. A medical expert who reviewed photographs
taken of the child determined the injuries were inflicted.
Safety, Risk, and Permanency (FSRP) services were implemented
with the family in September 2016-when the investigation
began. The unsanitary condition of the home when the children
were still living with the parents was a concern to service
December 9, 2016, E.S., P., and B. were adjudicated CINA. The
underlying reasons included nine child-abuse assessments
completed concerning these children spanning eight years,
including a founded child-abuse report where P. was the
victim of physical abuse with the perpetrator unidentified at
the time. At the CINA adjudicatory hearing, both parents
asserted P.'s injuries were self-inflicted. The mother
wanted the department of human services (DHS) ...