IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22

- 0383 Filed May 11, 2022

IN THE INTEREST OF S.S., Minor Child, A.S., Mother, Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Charles D. Fagan , District Associate Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her minor child.
AFF IRMED.

Keith R. Tucker, Glenwood, for appellant mother. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Toby J. Gordon, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Roberta Megel, Council Bluffs, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
child.

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

SCHUMACHER , Judge

. A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. We find there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the district court’s findings on the statutory grounds for termination of the mother’s parental rights, that termination is in the child’s best interests, and that an extension of time is not
warranted . We affirm the decision of the district court.
I. Background Fac ts & Proceedings S.S., the child in interest, was born in April 2021 and tested positive for amphetamines at birth

. 1 The child wa s removed from the mother’s custody and placed in foster care with a family that had adopted three of the child’s older half

siblings. S .S.’s mother reported that her relationship with S.S.’s father involved
domestic violence. S.S. has special medical needs , including hearing , sight, and gastro

intestinal problems . The mother , age thirty at the time of the termination hearing , has a history of substance abuse, her drug of choice being methamphetamine. S.S. is the seventh of the mother’s children. H er parental rights have b een terminated to three children; her four additional child ren , including S.S., are not in
her custody

. T he mother was pregnant at the time of the te rmination hearing with her eighth child, expected in May 2022. In early May 2021, the mother completed a substance

- abuse evaluation,
which recommended the mother enter inpatient treatment. The mother decli ned
to participa te

.

1 The father has not appealed the termination of his parental rights.3
On June 2, 2021, S.S. was adjudicated to be in need of assistance (CINA) , pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2), (n), and (o) (2021). The mother participated in Family Centered Services (FCS) and attended visits. She did not

a ppear for DHS drug testing except on one occasion when she refused to submit
to the test

. T he mother attended none of the child’s medical appointments. On October 6 , the mother began living at a home for pregnant women in
crisis , which was in another state . She had a second substance

- abuse evaluation , in which she denied being addicted to drugs , despite her acknowledgment of

“ snorting or smoking four bowls on a daily basis for a couple of years

. ” The mother began intensive outpatient treatment on Nov ember 22, 2021

. The mother also began individual therapy. On November 29, the State filed a petition for termination of the mother’s parental rights. The mother provided negative drug

screens while living in the home for women, which was a requirement f or remaining at the facility

. At the termination hearing, held on January 4 and 27 , 2022, the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) social work case manager testified the child
could not be returned to the mot her’s care because the mother o nly recently bega n participating in treatment

. The FCS worker testified the mother had not attended any of the child’s medical appointments. She did not believe the mother understood the child’s medical and developmental needs. Prior to the termination hearing, th e mother had not signed an Area Education Agency authori zation for the child to receive
needed services, delaying the signing to the time of the termination hearing. T he mother also failed to provide consent for a nother medical procedure.4

The mother tes tified that she did not participate in DHS drug testing because she did not have reliable transportation. She stated she last used
meth amphetamine in September 2021. The mother completed an outpatient
treatment program by the second day of the termination hearing. T he mother also completed a domestic violence program. At the termination hearing, she requested S.S. be placed with her at the facility. The mother presented the testimony of a program director at the home for pregnant women in crisis. The program director testified the mother would be a good candidate to have her child placed with her at the facility. She stated the mother was making progress and growth in the program

. On February 11, the district court terminated the mother’s parental r ights under section 232.116(1)(e), (h), and ( l ). The court found “although [the mother] has taken the first few minimal steps to obtain sobriety she has not and cannot care for [the child].” The court found termination of the mother’s parental rights

was in the child’s best interests. The court stated, The parents have shown that they are not prepared to care for their child. There is no evidence that giving them additional time to address their problems would be fruitful in the near future. There is no bond between this child and the parents that would warrant the court allowing more time to reunify. The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.
II. Standard of Review Our review of termination proceedings is de novo. In re A.B. , 815 N.W.2d 764, 773 (Iowa 2012). The State must prove its allegations for termination by clear and convincing evidence. In re C.B. , 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). “‘Clear and convincing evidence’ means there are no serious or substantial doubts as to5

the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.” Id. Our primary concern is the best interests of the children. In re J.S. , 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa 2014).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence We follow a three

- step analysis in reviewing the t ermination of a parent’s rights. In re P.L. , 778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010). We first consider whether there is a statutory ground for termination of the parent’s rights under section 232.116(1).
Id. Second, we look to whether termination of the parent’s rights is in the child’s
best interests. Id. (citing Iowa Code § 232.116(2)). Third, we consider whether any of the exceptions to termination in section 232.116(3) should be applied. Id. On the first issue, sufficiency of the evidence, “ [w] e w ill uphold an order terminating parental rights where there is clear and convincing evidence of the statutory grounds for termination.” In re T.S. , 868 N.W.2d 425, 434 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). “When the juvenile court orders termination of parental rights o n more than one statutory ground, we need only find grounds to terminate on one of the sections to affirm.” Id. at 435. We affirm the termination of the mother’s p arental rights under section 232.116(1)( h ). 2

2 Section 232.116(1)(h) provides for termination of parental rights when the court finds: (1) The child is three years of age or younger.

(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need o f assistance pursuant to section 232.96. (3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child ’ s parents for at least six months of the last twelve months, or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less t han thirty days. (4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child ’ s parents as provided in section 232.102 at the present time.6
The mother disputes only the fourth element, whether the child could safely be returned to her care at the time of the termination hearing. See In re D.W. , 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010) ( stating that for purposes of section 232.116(1)(h), we co nsider whether the child can “be returned to the parents’ custody at the time of the termination hearing”). The mother asserts that she successfully addressed the issues that led to the removal of the child

— substance

abuse problems, mental

- health problems , and domestic violence. On our careful review of the entire record, we find there is clear and

co nvincing evidence that the child cannot be safely returned to the mother’s care.
While the mother has taken some very recent steps forward, she has only jus t begun to address a long

- standing methamphetamine addiction. S he has been
unable to show that she can maintain sobriety over time. While she completed an assessment at the end of November, two months prior to the termination hearing, the mother reported to the evaluator that she was not addicted to methamphetamine. A nd because DHS was unaware of the evaluation, they could not provide collateral information. Because of the mother’s delay of engaging in

ser vices, the record is de void of evidence of the m other’s ability to maintain sobriety or care for S.S., a child with specialized medical needs, outside of a
structured facility. T he mother did not attend any of the child’s medical appointments, so she is unable to recognize or understand the child’s spe cial
needs. Additionally, an interstate home study would need to be completed before the child could be placed with the mother because she was no longer living in Iowa. The timeframe for the mothe r to secure housing was six to eight months from the7

termination hearing. W e find there is sufficient evidence in the record to support termination of the mother’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h).
IV. Best Interests The mother claims termination of her parental rights is not in the child’s bes t interests due to h er strong bond with the child. In considering the best interests of a child, we give “primary consideration to the child’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the long

- term nurturing and growth of the child, and to the physi cal, mental, and emotional needs of the child under section 232.116(2).” In re P.L. , 778 N.W.2d 33, 41 (Iowa 2010). “It is
well

- settled law that we cannot deprive a child of permanency after the State has proved a ground for termination under section 232 .116(1) by hoping someday a parent will learn to be a parent and be able to provide a stable home for the child.”
Id. As noted above, the mother did not attend any of the child’s medical appointments , although the child has physical concerns , including h earing loss , sight, and gastro

- intestinal issues. The mother was aware of the appointments.
T he mother could not meet the child’s medical needs because she did not have the necessary information about the extent of the child’s special needs. R ather than assisting the child, the mother blocked the foster parents’ attempts to have additional resources for the child . The mother did not sign the necessary paperwork f or the child to have access to these resources until the termination hearing. The mother never progressed beyond supervised visits , and the child has been out of the mother’s custody since birth.8 We acknowledge that “the parent ’ s right to have a child returned .

. . is not measured by comparing the parent ’ s home to the foster home or an ideal home.” In re Blackledge , 304 N.W.2d 209, 214

– 15 (Iowa 1981). B ut our legislation permits
consider ation of “ whether the child has been placed into a foster family , the extent
to which the child has been integrated into the family , and whether the foster family is able and willing to adopt the child. ” In re D.W. , 791 N.W.2d 703, 708 (Iowa 2010) (citing Iowa Code § 232.116(2)( b ) )

. S.S. is placed with three of her half

- siblings to whom she is extremely bonded. T he foster family has also ensured S.S. has contact with half

- si blings that do not reside in the home. S .S. is fully integrated with this placement. Her placement i s interested in adoption. We find termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best
interests.
V. Extension of Time The mother asks for an additional three to six months to work on reunification with the child. She states, “Reunification could be achieved with additional time gr anted by the court.” The mother asserts the child could be placed
with h er immediately at the home for pregnant women in crisis. The court may decide to not terminate parental rights if it finds there is clear and convincing evidence that CINA proceedings should continue and enters an order to extend the time for reunification in accordance with section 232.104(2)(b). See Iowa Code § 232.117(5); In re J.H. , No . 21

- 1285, 2022 WL 470193, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2022). The court may continue the proceedings for an additional six months if the court finds “the need for removal . . . will no longer exist at the end of the additional six

- month period.” Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b).9
Although the mother claims the child could be immediately placed in her
care, it is unkno wn how long it would take for the completion o f an int erstate compact home study required for the child to be placed with the mother in another state. In addition, the mother wo uld need to maintain sobriety and be able to meet the child’s medical needs. T he mother has a long history of substance abu se and involvement with DHS and has only begun to address concerns outlined at the time of removal

. W hile we commend the mother’s admission to a facility when pregnant with her eig ht h child, w e agree with the district court that there is a lack of evidence that giving the mother additional time to address her problems woul d result in the need for removal no longer existing at the end of six months

. We affirm the decision of the district court.
AFFIRMED.