IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19

- 1533 Filed April 1, 2020

IN THE INTEREST OF M.C., Minor Child, T.W., Mother, Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte , District Associate Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her one

- year - old

son. AFFIRMED

.

Raya D. Dimitrova of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant
mother. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Kayla Stratton of Juvenile Public Defender , Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Tabor, P.J. , and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.2

TABOR , Presiding Judge

. A mother , Tiana, appeals the termination of h er parental rights to her fourth
child , M.C

. She argues the State failed to present clear and convincing evidence to support the statutory basis for terminating her rights. After independently reviewing the record, we affirm. 1
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings M.C. was born i n November 201 8

. But his mother’s involvement with the
I owa Department of Human Services (DHS) predated his birth. To set the stage,
Tiana had three older children

— born in 2015, 2016, and 2017

— and was pregnant with twins at the time of the termination trial in this case . The juvenile court terminated Tiana’s parental rights to her three older children in June 2019. 2 We affirmed that termination. In re A.B. , No. 19

- 1089, 2019 WL 5428853, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2019)

. For the first few months of M.C.’s life, he remained in parental care. But t he juvenile court prohibited M.C. ’s contact with his father, Michael , outside of professionally supervised visits. The court eventually ordered M.C.’s removal
when Tiana lied about allowing Michael unapproved contact with th eir children

.

1 In termination

- of

- parental

- rights cases, we review the proceedings de novo. In re A.M. , 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). The juvenile court’ s findings of fact do not bind us, but they deserve deference, especially when assessing the credibility of witnesses. Id. The State must present clear and convincing evidence of the grounds for termination of parental rights. In re D.W. , 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010) ; see Iowa Code § 232.117(3) (2019)

. Evidence satisfies that standard if no serious or significant doubts exist about the correctness of conclusions of law drawn from the proof. In re C.B. , 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). 2 The court also terminated the parental rights of M.C.’s father , Michael , in that order. The court preserved Tiana’s parental rights to M.C.3

And Tiana let M.C. develop a case of diaper rash so severe that it required admission to the hospital and an overnight stay. The court adjudicated M.C. as a child in need of a ssistance (CINA) in January 2019. Around th at time, M.C. had a positive hair test for cocaine

. The
next month the police apprehended Tiana at a Hy

- Vee store for shoplifting

. She
was in Michael ’s company . They fought , and Michael bit her arm. The police charged him with domestic abuse assault causing injury.
The district court held a r eview hearing in April 2019 . The DHS c oncerns about Tiana’s parenting skills persisted

. She remained unclear about the juvenile court’s expectations

. The court stressed the importance of participating i n individual therapy, substance

- abuse treatment , drug scr eens, and attend ing visits

. In its June 2019 order, the court found the State failed to offer clear and convincing evidence to support termination of Tiana’s parental rights as to M.C. That same month, the S tate filed a new petition seeking t ermination

. After an August 2019 hearing at which Tiana testified, the court approved the petition. 3
The court offered the following summary of relevant facts: Tiana displayed a lack of insight as to how her choices impacted her children

. . . . She denied being hig hly intoxicated or that she was an inappropriate caretaker. Tiana blamed her alcohol usage on DHS. She reported drinking every day because her children were removed. Tiana denied struggling with sobriety during this court case. She had no explanation f or how she tested positive for cocaine or how her son M.C. also tested positive for cocaine. Tiana blamed DHS for the report that Tiana removed her drug patch in December 2018. Tia na was not actively engaged in domestic v iolence services, nor was she engaged in her own mental health therapy on a consistent basis. Tiana had missed 8 out of 20 therapy sessions and was on same day schedu ling due to her inconsistencies. . . . Little

3 Tiana testified Michael was not the father of the twins she was expecting.4
has changed in the mother’s response to se rvices sin c e the last hearing in May 2019.
The court determined the State offered clear and convincing proof to support termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1) , paragraphs (g) and (h) (2019 )

. T iana now appeals.
II. Analysis When the juvenile co urt orders termination under more than one statutory provision , we need only find clear and convincing evidence to support one ground to affirm. In re T.S. , 868 N.W.2d 425, 435 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). We focus today on paragraph (g). Under that provision, t he court may terminate the parent

- child relationship if it finds: (1) The child has been adjudicated a [CINA] pursuant to section 232.96. (2) The court has terminated parental rights pursuant to section 2 32.117 with respect to an other child who is a member of the same family

. . . . (3) There is clear and convincing evidence that the parent continues to lack the ability or willingness to respond to services which would correct the situation. (4) There is clear and convincing evi dence that an additional period of rehabilitation would not correct the situation. Iowa Code § 232.116 (1) ( g ). No question, M.C. meets the first t wo requirements. The court adjudicated him as a CINA in January 2019 . And the court terminated Tiana’s parental rights
to his siblings in June 2019. The third and fourth elements remain in contention. (A) Did the State offer clear and convincing evidence that Tiana is still unable or

un willing to respond to services that would remedy the situation ? (B) A nd would
more time to rehabilitat e correct the situation? We address those questions in turn.5
(A) In ability or unwillingness to respond to services Tiana contends she is able and willing to respond to services that would allow reunification. She claims her home is safe and appropriate for M.C. Tiana
also points out she was gainfully employed throughout the case. And she has engaged in family safety , risk , and permanency services that would allow her to resume care of M.C.
These c ircumstances do not tell the whole story. Instead, the record shows Tiana has not gained the skills or knowledge necessary to safely parent M. C. despite the duration of DHS involvement

. Under paragraph (g), the prior termination will “ ordinarily have provided a usefu l insight ” about the par ent’s ability to function within the goals of an earlier permanency plan

. See In re L.H. , 480 N.W.2d 43, 46 (Iowa 1992)

. Indeed, those useful insights are available here. The DHS report noted: Given the very long history of se rvices provided to this mother regarding her three other children’s CINA cases, her lack of insight shown at the termination hearing regarding those children and this child’s need for permanency, the State is again asking the Court to address termination o f the mother’s parental rights as to this child. In our de novo review, we find clear and convincing evidence Tiana is unable or unwilling to respond to the services necessary to ensure a stable environment for M.C. Tiana refuses to address her substance

- abuse issues or to engage in individual therapy for her mental

- health needs. She has not cooperated with DHS workers and blames them for her lack of sobriety. She has not been forthcoming about domestic abuse perpetrated by Michael. And the ju venile court found her lack of candor about the father of the twins to be more evidence of her lack of “protective capacity.” The State met the third element.6
( B ) A dditional rehabilitation period to correct the situation
T iana insists additional time to engage in rehabilitative services will correct the situation that led to M.C.’s removal. We disagree with that prediction

. As a practical matter, the juvenile court’s dismissal of the termination petition in M.C.’s case in June 2019 provided Tiana with another period of rehabilitation. She did
not take that chance to seek substance

- abuse treatment or individual counseling.
A t the August termination hearing, she refused to say whether she had consum ed alcohol in the past few months. And she continued t o be evasive about her exposure to domestic violence. After viewing the record as a whole, we find clear and convincing evidence that more time for rehabilitation would not fix the problems with Tiana’s parenting. We affirm the order of termination unde r section 232.116(1)(g).
AFFIRMED.