IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23

- 0783 Filed July 13, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF Y.R., Minor Child,

M.R., Mother, Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner

, District

Associate Judge.

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

Lynn Vogan of the Juvenile Public Defender , Des Moines, attorney for

appellant mother.

Cathleen J. Siebrecht of Siebrecht Law F irm, Pleasant Hill, guardian ad

litem for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Barbara Davis of Barbara Durden Davis, P.C., West Des Moines, attorney

and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Scott Bandstra of The Bandstra Law Firm PC, Des Moines, for intervenors

M.A. and J.A.

Considered by Ahlers, P.J. , Chicchelly, J., and Scott, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2023 ).2

SCOTT
, Senior Judge

.

The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to Y.R. pursuant

to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2022). Under section 232.116(1)(h), the court

may terminate a parent ’ s rights when there is clear and convincing evidence the

child is three years of age or younger, has been adjudicated a child in need of

assistance ( CINA ) , has been removed from the paren t’ s physical custody for at

least six of the last twelve months without a trial period at home longer than thirty

days, and there is clear and convincing evidence the child could not be returned

to the home at the present time. There is no dispute that Y.R. is three years of

age or younger, has been adjudicated a CINA , and has been out of parental care

for the requisite period

. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(1)

- (3). But the mother

claims the State failed to make “specialized reasonable efforts” and, thus, there is

insufficient proof to support termination or conclude termination of her rights is in

the child’s best interest.

“We review proce edings to terminate parental rights de novo. We give

weight to the juvenile court ’ s factual findings, especially when considering the

credibility of witnesses, but we are not bound by them.” In re A.B. , 815 N.W.2d

764, 773 (Iowa 2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

In In re G.J.

, No. 19

- 0282, 2019 WL 1934003, at *3

– 5 (Iowa Ct. App. May

1, 2019)

, a parent raise d the issue of reasonable accommodations under the

American with Disabilities Act (ADA). In that case, we noted, “ The purpose

u nderlying the reasonable

- efforts requirement is to help the parent to make the

changes necessary for the child to return. ” G.J. , 2019 WL 1934003, at *3. Th ere,

th e mother argued she was denied reasonable effort accommodations

— " picture3

books to help her c omprehend the parenting curriculum, the provision of an alert

system for when the child cries, an ‘ appropriate ’ psychological evaluator, and

providing adequate communications. ” Id. at *4. We concluded :

We find [the department of human services 1 ] made reasonable efforts to facilitate the reunification of the mother and the child. [H] HS provided reasonable accommodations in compliance with the ADA to the extent possible given the mother ’ s refusal to actively participate in ordered services. The m other has failed to show she requested a reasonable service that was not offered to her. [H] HS can offer the services, but the parent must make the effort if the services are to remedy deficiencies and help return the child to the home.

Id. at *5.

Here , t he mother asserts

, “ The case turns on whether, due to the lack of

reasonable effort provided, the [S] tate has proven that the child cannot be safely

returned to the parent’s care at this time. ” The only deficiency in service the mother

identifies on ap peal is not a service to be provided to her ; r ather, she asserts HHS

did not consistently provide language interpreters to her parents

. 2 T he juvenile

court addressed this claim in its October 2022 permanency orde r :

[The mother] speaks English fluently and does not need interpretation services. Counsel raises the issues of whether interpretation services have been provided at [the m other] ’s professionally supervised visits with [Y.R.] when [the m other] ’s parents attend. On Febr uary 1, 2022, the court ordered as follows: “ [H]H S shall explore options for bilingual FCS and Safe Care services for this family; and alternatively, all providers shall use interpretation services during interactions with [the m other] ’s parents including

1 The agency is now the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

2 To the extent she asserts these claims for her parents

— who were allowed to intervene in the juvenile proceedings

— she has no standing to make claims for them. See In re K.R. , 737 N.W.2d 321, 323 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (“[The father] did not have standing to assert that argument on [the mother’s] behalf in an effort to ultimately gain a benefit for himself, that is, the reversal of the termination of his parental rights.”).4

visits when [the m other] ’s parents are present and Safe Care. [H] HS shall engage the grandparents in visits with [Y.R.] to explain safety concerns and provide education. [H] HS shall use these services to make efforts toward concurrent planning of placeme nt of [Y.R.] with a family member.” It is necessary to consider the family circumstances in February, 2022, and the full context of that order. As of the February 1, 2022 hearing, [Y.R.] was in foster care. [ T he m other] was living with her parents. Reu nification at that time would include [the m other] living with her parents, and her parents being involved in caring for [Y.R.]

. Alternatively, relative placements such as [the m other] ’s parents would be considered. Neither [the

m other] nor her parents were able to safely care for [Y.R.] at that time. It was reasonable at that time for FCS services and Safe Care services to include education for [the mo ther] ’s parents to understand [the m other] ’s abilities and how to support her parenti ng, or fill in where [the m other] ’s parenting was inadequate. These measures would support reunification or, alternatively, relative placement. The purpose was not for [the m other] ’s parents to act as interpreters for [the m other]

. The court wrote “The situation is atypical in that [the m other] ’s parents are acting as caregivers for [the

m other] and also learning to act as simultaneous caregivers for [Y.R.] , and services must be tailored to meet the family’s circumstances.” The family’s circumstances ar e different now. [Y.R.] is in relative care. [Y.R.] was placed in relative placement in April, 2022. [ T he m other] lives with her brother. [ T he m other] moved in with her brother in mid

- July, 2022 by her and her family’s own choosing. Reunification with [the m other] would no longer include [the m other] ’s parents living with [the m other] and [Y.R.] [ H ] HS is under no obligation to make efforts to place [Y.R.] with [the m other] ’s parents. A review hearing was held in April, 2022 and the court found that reasonable efforts had been provided toward reunification.

The mother did not appeal the October 2022 permanency order. 3 See In re

D.S. , 563 N.W.2d 12, 15 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (noting principles of res judicata

3 We note our supreme court has held: [H]HS’s obligation to provide reasonable efforts until a final written termination order does not necessarily require [H]HS to provide reasonable efforts toward reunification . The legislature instructed that “the paramount concern[s] in making reasonable efforts” are “[a] child’s health and safety.” Iowa Code § 232.102(10)(a). Where it is inappropriate to return a child to the family home, the legislature specified that “reasonable efforts shall include the efforts made i n a timely manner to finalize a permanency plan for the child.” Id. “If it5

preclude the court from relitigating issues that have already been decided and

reiterating the parent’s obligation to timely challenge the services offered).

The juvenile court’s termination order noted the services the mother was

provided, including supervised visits with par enting training, mental

- health care,

parenting evaluation, and Integrated Health Home (IHH) services. The court also

noted the mother’s failure to engage with a number of the services :

[ T he m other] continues to be unable to respond to [Y.R.] ’s cues and continues to show a lack of connection to and interest in [Y.R.] [ T he

m other] is not willing to participate in additional services, such as IHH. [ T he m other] is not interested in fully participating in the services that are offered such as supervised visits where she would have additional support and instruction about parenting. [ T he

m other] ’s insight into her mental health needs and mental health care is limited, as shown by her uncertainty about her need for mental health care. [ T he m other] ’s ment al health has improved since the winter for 2021/2022, but only to the extent that she is better able to take care of herself. No specific services were requested to address [the m other] ’s disability

— her mental illness. [ She ] was provided services to add ress her mental health. [ She ] was also provided parenting education through FCS and a parenting assessment. There was no evidence how a different service to accommodate [ her] disability would have changed the outcome.

We conclude HHS offered reasonable services designed to address the

concerns that resulted in the removal of the child

. See G.J. , 2019 WL 1934003, at

*4. The mother is unable to meet the child’s basic needs without prompting and

cues from others and thus the child cannot safely be returned to her custody

.

has been determined that the child cannot return to the child’s home,” the child’s “case permanency plan” must include “documentation of the steps taken to make and finalize an ad option or other permanent placement.” Id. § 232.2(4)(j). Therefore, the statute provides for situations in which reunification need not be a goal or component of [H] HS’s reasonable efforts. In re L.T. , 924 N.W.2d 521, 528

– 29 (Iowa 2019) (third and fourth alterations in original)

.6

There is clear and convincing evidence to support termination of the mother’s

parental rights.

Because a statutory ground for termination exist s , we must next determine

whether termination is in the child ’ s best interests. A.B. , 815 N.W.2d at 776. 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 physical,

mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2) ;

see In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 802 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially)

(stating that a child ’ s safety and the child ’ s need for a permanent home are the

“defining elements” in determining a child ’ s best interests).

The mother’s guard ian ad litem argued Y.R. ’s best interests would be

served by allowing the child to remain in her current placement with a relative under

a guardianship. Although t ransfer of guardianship and custody to a suitable person

or an adult relative is a permanenc y option, Iowa Code section 232.104(4)(a)

requires a showing by convincing evidence that termination would be contrary to

the child ’ s best interests. And our courts have noted “a guardianship is not a legally

preferable alternative to termination .” I n re B.T. , 894 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa Ct. App.

2017). Here, the juvenile court rejected guardianship:

A guardianship is not in [Y.R.] ’s best interest. [Y.R.] is only one year old. A guardianship does not provide the same level of permanenc y as termination of parental rights and adoption as a guardianship can be litigated repeatedly and even terminated. [Y.R.] deserves to have the chance to be adopted and have permanent parents and stability for the rest of her childhood.

Accord In re A.S. , 906 N.W.2d 467, 477 (Iowa 2019) (discussing age of child,

guardianship, and lack of permanency). The child is in a stable and suitable pre

-7

adoptive placement with relatives. Termination of the mother’s parental rights and

adoption will best further the child’s long

- term nurturing and growth

.

There is no permissive factor in Iowa Code section 232.116(3) applicable

here . We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights

.

AFFIRMED.