IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 22

- 1429 Filed November 17, 2022

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M. - G. and A.M., Minor Children, P.M., Mother, Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt , Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.

Joseph G. Martin, Cedar Falls, for appellant mother. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey

- Kacena, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Kimberly S. Lange of the Public Defender’s Office, Waterloo, attorney and guardian ad litem

.

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

SCHUMACHER , Judge
. A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. She claims termination is not in the best interests of the children and asks for a six

- month extension. We find termination is in the children’s best interests. Additionally, a six

- month extension in not warranted on the facts in this record . We affirm. I. Background Facts & Proceedings The instant proceedings began in August 2020 after the Department of Health and Human Services (D H HS) became aware of reports of the mother’s failure to safely superv ise her children, as well as the mother’s drug use. 1 A.M.

- G., age three

- and

- a - half, and A.M., age two

- and

- a - half, were removed from their mother’s custody and placed with their maternal grandmother, where they have remained for the duration of th e case. The mother was instructed to complete substance

- abuse treatment, comply with drug testing, complete a mental

- health evaluation and fulfill any recommended treatment, participate in Family Centered Services (FCS) and the SafeCare curriculum, and consisten tly attend visits with the children. L ittle progress was made on any of these goals. The mother completed a substance

- abuse evaluation in July 2021, which diagnosed her with cocaine use disorder

— severe, cannabis use disorder

— severe, and opiate use disord er — severe, in sustained remission. However, the mother did not complete any substance

- abuse treatment. Nor did she engage in mental

- health treatment, despite self

- disclosing to D H HS that she suffer ed from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Visitation w as also problematic

1 The mother was involved with D H HS in 2018 because of similar concerns.3

for the mother. Providers reported that the mother easily grew frustrated with the children, failed to discipline them, failed to properly supervise them , and left

numerous hazards around the house, including loose pills and scissors w ithin the children’s reach. The mother completed only ten drug tests over eighteen months, one of which was positive for cocaine and several of which were indicative of non human urine, resulting in presumptive positive results. The S tate petitioned to terminate the mother’s parental rights in December 2021. Following a hearing, the court granted the mother a six

- month extension, noting the mother’s spirited promises to improve her situation. Still the mother struggle d to make progress. Despite efforts to make visits more available, the mother only participated in about thirteen of twenty

- six visits since February. Similarly, she only participated in five of thirteen FCS meetings and three of six SafeCare classes. She tested positive fo r cocaine on May 28, 2022, the day after her most recent child’s birth, and admitted to drug use during the pregnancy. 2
H ospital staff indicated she was not compliant with the mental

- health medication she purported to be taking at the time. The mother bl ames much of her continued struggles with sobriety and visits on health problems she encountered since the February hearing, some of which related to her pregnancy. While D H HS did not doubt the existence of some medical issues, the mother never signed med ical releases so D H HS could verify the restrictions she claimed were in place. Her visits were held virtually in April and May to accommodate the mother being placed on bedrest. Despite those

2 The new baby is not part of the instant appeal.4

accommodations, the mother still attended only five of fourtee n offered visits during those months. She completed a new substance

- abuse evaluation on June 6, which recommended inpatient treatment. 3 The mother was referred to a facility at the same time. A second t ermination hearing was held June 9. After hearin g testimony from the D H HS caseworker and the mother, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(h) and ( l ) (2022). The mother subsequently moved to reconsider, which the court denied. The mother appeals. 4
II. Standard of Review We review the termination of parental rights de novo. In re P.L. , 778 N.W.2d 30, 40 (Iowa 2010). We generally review such proceedings using a three

- step analysis. Id. at 39. However, the mother does not contest that there is a s tatutory ground for termination or whether permissive exceptions apply that could prevent termination. See id. Thus, we need not discuss those steps. Id. at 40. III. Discussion The mother claims termination is not in the best interests of the children. Wh en considering the best interests of the children, we “g ive 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 physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child. ” Iowa Code § 232.116(2).

3 The mother signed a limited release of information, informing DHS about the occurrence of the evaluation and the recommendation for treatment, but omitting her diagnoses. 4 The father ’ s parental rights were also terminated. He does not appeal.5

We det ermi ne termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. The mother has made little discernable progress over the course of the case. She has failed to complete substance

- abuse treatment and has not participated in mental

- health treatment. Despite self

- reporting she suffe rs from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, she was non

- compliant with her medication around the time of her most

- recent child’s birth. The mother tested positive for cocaine about two weeks prior to the termination hearing, which indicated use while she was pregnant. The mother’s substance

- abuse and mental

- health present a real danger to the children. She has continued to struggle supervising the children during visits

. The children have been removed from the mother’s c ustody for about twenty months

— a substantial portion of their young lives. T he maternal grandmother , the current placement, is a licensed adoptive home. See In re A.M. , 843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014)

. Waiting for the mother to resolve her substance

- abuse issues is not in the children’ s best interests. See P.L. , 778 N.W.2d at 41 (“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 that someday a parent will learn to be a parent and b e able to provide a stable home for the child.”). The mother also requests a six

- month extension, contending she could enter inpatient treatment without harming the children by continuing their placement with their maternal grandmother. She also blames th e lack of progress she has made thus far on health issues. Juvenile courts may grant a six

- month extension to proceedings when there is a basis to believe “the need for removal of6

the child from the child’s home will no longer exist at the end of the addi tional six

month period.” Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). The juvenile court properly denied the six

- month extension. First, as noted above, the mother has made very little progress over the proceeding twenty months. While she blames medical issues have hi ndered her progress, those issues only arose after the February 2022 hearing in which the court granted a six

month extension. She cannot explain her lack of participation or progress prior to that hearing. And DH H S made accommodations for those health i ssues, allowing her to do virtual visits and offering at

- home drug testing. The mother failed to meaningfully utilize those options. Similarly, while the mother contends she will enter inpatient treatment soon, she has failed to maintain her sobriety fo r the past four years of D H HS involvement. She continued her drug use following the discovery of her most recent pregnancy and the February hearing that provided a six

- month extension. See In re A.B. , 815 N.W.2d 764, 778 (Iowa 2012) (explaining that a pa rent’s past conduct is indicative of future behavior). Given her extensive history of non

- participation in services, her assurance to attend inpatient treatment at the time of the termination hearing rings hollow. The mother had ample time to tackle her substance abuse issues, but failed to do so. T he juvenile court quote d the D H HS caseworker as aptly describ ing the issue:

[The mother] has spent a great deal of energy trying to prove her excuses for complying with treatment and testing. It remains very difficult to believe [her] as she has provided many explanations. When asked to provide facts and documentation she is not able to do so.7
The mother’s assurances notwithstanding, nothing in the record suggests the children could be safely returned to her custody in the next six

- months. A six

month extension is not appropriate in this case. AFFIRMED.