Court Opinion

ID: 9895772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 17:06:49.729233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:48.416077
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                      No. 23-1327
                                Filed November 8, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF D.H. and T.B.,
Minor Children,

D.H., Father,
       Appellant,

A.B., Mother,
       Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

          Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, James B. Malloy,

District Associate Judge.

          A mother and father separately appeal from the termination of their parental

rights to their children. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

          Arielle M. Lipman of Lipman Law Firm, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellant

father.

          Kelsey Knight of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant mother.

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

General, for appellee State.

          Nathan D. Hostetter of Hostetter Law Office, Ames, attorney and guardian

ad litem for minor children.

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

BOWER, Chief Judge.

       A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental

rights to their children. The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights

to D.H., born in 2013, and T.B., born in 2008. The father appeals the termination

of his parental rights to D.H. We affirm on both appeals.

I.     Background Facts and Proceedings

       The children were first removed from the mother’s and father’s custody in

January 2022 and adjudicated children in need of assistance in March 2022. The

removal occurred after execution of a search warrant revealed drug paraphernalia

and drug residue in the household. The children were placed with their maternal

great-grandmother.

       The mother underwent a substance-abuse evaluation in April 2022 but

failed to disclose her methamphetamine use, resulting in no recommended

treatment. She tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine in March

2023. She also tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and THC in

May 2023, after giving birth to another child not at issue here. The mother refused

several drug tests requested by the Iowa Department of Health and Human

Services (department). The mother attended inpatient treatment for her substance

abuse, but she left after only four days of treatment, citing her inability to have her

children placed with her, her need to take care of her dogs, and her desire to attend

her sister’s graduation.

       The department also expressed concerns about the mother’s mental health.

As a result, the mother attended online therapy for some time but discontinued her
                                         3

appointments by the termination hearing.         She has not pursued additional

treatment, despite recommendations from the department.

       There were also concerns about the mother’s parental judgment. In April

2023, T.B. was hospitalized after attempting suicide. T.B.’s doctors recommended

inpatient mental-health treatment. Against medical advice, the mother discharged

T.B. and took her to her great-grandmother’s house. Her great-grandmother was

asleep, and T.B. was left unsupervised. T.B. was later returned to the hospital for

suicidal ideation.

       The father underwent two substance-abuse evaluations, one in April 2022

and one in February 2023. The department recommended treatment, but the

father failed to follow through. The department requested the father submit to

seven drug tests, but he only submitted to one—he tested positive for

methamphetamine.

       The father also underwent a mental-health evaluation in April 2022. The

provider diagnosed the father with a mental-health condition. The father was

unwilling to seek treatment, so no recommendations were made.

       During the pendency of these proceedings, the father failed to attend

several visits with the children. During the visits he attended, the father often got

into confrontations with the mother, affecting the children’s mental well-being.

       The termination hearing was held on May 26, 2023. The district court heard

testimony from the social work case manager, the social work supervisor, the

great-grandmother, and the mother.        On August 14, 2023, the district court

terminated the mother’s and father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section

232.116(g) and (h) (2023).
                                           4

II.      Standard of Review

         We review de novo the termination of parental rights. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d

467, 472 (Iowa 2018). We give weight to, but are not bound by, the district court’s

fact findings. Id.

III.     Analysis

         When reviewing termination of parental rights, we use a three-step analysis.

Id. First, we determine whether a ground for termination exists under section

232.116(1). Next, we determine whether termination is in the best interests of the

child.   Iowa Code § 232.116(2).      Finally, we assess whether any exceptions

preclude termination. Id. § 232.116(3).

         Because neither the mother nor father contests the existence of grounds for

termination, we need not discuss the first step. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa

2010).

         A. Best Interests of the Children.    Under step two of our analysis, we

consider the “child[ren]’s safety, . . . the best placement for furthering the long-term

nurturing and growth of the child[ren], and . . . the physical, mental, and emotional

condition and needs of the child[ren].” Iowa Code § 232.116(2). “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.” In re A.M.,

843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (citation omitted).

         The mother tested positive for methamphetamine multiple times over the

past year. It is apparent she is either unable or unwilling to address her substance-

abuse and mental-health issues, despite recommendations by the department.
                                          5

The one time she did undergo inpatient care, she left within four days. We do not

question whether she loves her children, but love is not enough to establish a safe

and stable home, especially considering the emotional and medical issues her

children face. Termination is in the children’s best interests.

       The same is true of the father. Despite repeated recommendations from

the department, the father has not sought any help for his substance-abuse or

mental-health issues, which the department characterize as “fairly severe.” He

tested positive for methamphetamine within the last year, and his failure to seek

treatment emphasizes his inability to parent these children. Given these continuing

concerns, it is impossible for the father to provide a stable and safe home for D.H.,

especially considering the child’s special needs.

       B. Exceptions and Guardianship. Once the State has proven grounds for

termination exist, the burden shifts to the parent to prove a permissive exception

under section 232.116(3). A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 475–76. The mother and father

suggest their bonds with their children and the children’s objections should

preclude termination. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3). They also argue permanency

should be achieved through a guardianship with the great-grandmother.

       While the children and their parents do have a bond, to apply the exception

under paragraph (c) requires clear and convincing evidence “termination would be

detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child

relationship.” Id. § 232.116(3)(c). Neither parent established their bond is so

strong as to outweigh the children’s need for permanency. See In re W.M., 957

N.W.2d 305, 315 (Iowa 2021). A stable home with reliable care is essential for

D.H.’s development—something neither parent is able to offer.          While D.H.’s
                                         6

separation from his parents will require an adjustment period, we find it is in his

best interests to terminate the mother’s and father’s parental rights. T.B. has

established self-protective qualities and will likely be able to transition to a more

stable living situation. Whatever disadvantage the children may face because of

termination is outweighed by the mother’s and father’s inability to provide for the

children.

       Guardianship will not provide the stability the children need. In Iowa, “a

guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative to termination.” See A.S., 906

N.W.2d at 477 (citation omitted). The great-grandmother has shown herself to be

an unsuitable guardian; she failed to ensure T.B. takes her needed medications,

allowed unsupervised visits, and failed to follow court orders and department

directives. The department has expressed concerns about her age and medical

conditions, which preclude her from driving.        Stability is paramount in the

development of children, and a guardianship, which by its very nature is able to be

terminated or amended, does not provide that stability.

       Finally, the mother and father argue termination is improper because the

children object. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(b). While the children have resisted

termination, they have done so out of loyalty and love for their parents. 1 We are

empathetic to the children and their wishes, but “[t]he best interests of a child is

not always what ‘the child wants.’” In re A.R., 932 N.W.2d 588, 592 (Iowa Ct. App.

2019) (citations omitted). The record establishes that a guardianship is not the

appropriate permanency option and a permissive exception should not be applied.

1 We note D.H. is only nine years old, so Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(b) is

inapplicable.
                                  7

We affirm the termination of the mother’s and father’s parental rights.

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.