Court Opinion

ID: 9554580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 15:07:16.312282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:36.002506
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                    No. 23-0863
                                Filed August 9, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF P.-C.M.,
Minor Child,

T.M., Mother,
       Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel Block,

Associate Juvenile Judge.

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

AFFIRMED.

         Andrew C. Abbott of Abbott Law Office, P.C., Waterloo, for appellant

mother.

         Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Lisa Jeanes, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

         Michelle Marie Jungers, Waterloo, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor

child.

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

CHICCHELLY, Judge.

       A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two-year-old

child. She challenges the efforts made to return the child to her care and asks us

to defer permanency.1 After a de novo review of the record, see In re Z.K., 973

N.W.2d 27, 32 (Iowa 2022), we affirm.

       In April 2022, the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

received a report that the mother was caring for the child while highly intoxicated.

Because the mother refused to agree to a safety plan, the child was removed from

her custody. After conducting a child protective assessment, the HHS found the

mother denied the child critical care by failing to provide proper supervision. It is

the third founded assessment against the mother since 2015.2

       The juvenile court adjudicated the child as a child in need of assistance

(CINA) in May 2022.      The adjudicatory order cited “concerns regarding [the

mother’s] substance abuse, denial of critical care, lack of supervision, and unmet

mental health needs.” The juvenile court ordered the mother to “comply with all

recommendations for mental-health and substance-abuse programming,” “comply

1 The issue stated in the mother’s brief is that court erred in finding clear and

convincing evidence existed to terminate her parental rights. But in her argument,
the mother does not contest any of the elements for terminating her parental rights
on either ground cited by the juvenile court. Because the mother’s argument
focuses instead on reasonable efforts and deferring permanency, we address
those issues.
2 At the time of the termination hearing, the mother had eight children: her parental

rights to one child were terminated previously, three of the children were in a
guardianship, and four children were adjudicated CINA. The termination order
from which the mother appeals concerns the youngest of the four children who
were adjudicated CINA. Although that child was not born until April 2021, the
mother’s history with the other children is relevant to the issues on appeal. See In
re B.H.A., 938 N.W.2d 227, 233 (Iowa 2020) (noting a parent’s past performance
shows the quality of the future care that parent can provide).
                                             3

with any requests for random drug testing,” and “actively engage in her mental-

health treatment,” including medication management.              But by the termination

hearing ten months later, concerns about the mother’s mental health and

substance abuse remained, as she had not completed treatment for either. Her

visits with the child were inconsistent, with the mother cancelling multiple times

because she was “too drunk,” among other excuses. She was also arrested for

public intoxication in November 2022 and January 2023.

        The State petitioned to terminate the mother’s parental rights to the child in

January 2023.      The HHS, guardian ad litem, and Court Appointed Special

Advocate recommended terminating the mother’s parental rights to allow for the

child’s adoption by the foster care family. In May 2023, the juvenile court entered

its   order   terminating   the   mother’s       parental   rights   under   Iowa   Code

section 232.116(1)(e) and (h) (2023)

        The mother contends that the State failed to make reasonable efforts toward

reunification. When a child is removed from a parent’s custody, the State must

“make every reasonable effort to return the child to the child’s home as quickly as

possible consistent with the best interests of the child.”3 The mother challenged

the services offered to her at the December 2022 dispositional review hearing. In

January 2023, three weeks after the State petitioned to terminate parental rights,

the mother moved for a hearing on her claim the HHS failed to make reasonable

3 At the time of the CINA adjudication, this provision was codified in Iowa Code

section 232.102(7) (2022). Two months later, a legislative amendment went into
effect that deleted some subsections from section 232.102, reordering some of
those that remained. See 2022 Iowa Acts ch. 1098, § 47. As a result, the provision
now appears in section 232.102(6) (Supp. 2022).
                                         4

efforts. The juvenile court addressed and denied the motion in the termination

order.

         The mother first complains that the HHS failed to make reasonable efforts

because she requested a Solution Focused Meeting that was never scheduled.

Our review of the record shows this failure is because of the mother, not the HHS.

Because the purpose of a Solution Focused Meeting is for the parent and service

providers to discuss the best plan for reunification, the parent’s participation is

necessary. A Solution Focused Meeting took place in August 2022. Because the

mother refused to cooperate with attempts to schedule additional meetings, none

were held.

         The mother also complains that the HHS failed to initiate home studies on

the child’s out-of-state relatives, as she requested. But the HHS worker testified

that the HHS would not have placed the child out of state while the goal was

reunification with the mother. Moreover, the mother cannot show how any such

failure affected her ability to resume custody of the child. See In re L.T., 924

N.W.2d 521, 527 (Iowa 2019) (holding that failing to provide reasonable efforts

does not preclude termination but impacts the State’s burden of proving a child

cannot be returned to the parent’s care). See id. The child could not be returned

to the mother’s custody because of her unaddressed mental-health and

substance-abuse issues, for which the mother was offered ample services.

Completing the home studies would not have addressed either concern.

         The mother asks us to defer permanency to allow the child to be returned

to her custody. Under Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b), the court can continue a

child’s placement for six months if doing so will eliminate the need for the child’s
                                         5

removal. But before doing so, the court must “enumerate the specific factors,

conditions, or expected behavioral changes which comprise the basis for the

determination that the need for removal of the child from the child’s home will no

longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period.”           Iowa Code

§ 232.104(2)(b). We cannot. The HHS found the mother denied her children

critical care on at least two other occasions before the child’s birth. Although the

mother was offered services to resolve the issues that led to those findings, the

same reasons led to HHS involvement with this child and the CINA adjudication.

Under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h)(3), the mother had six months after the

CINA adjudication to remedy the circumstances that led to the child’s removal.

Once that period has passed, we view these proceedings with a sense of urgency.

See C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 494–95. A year passed between the CINA adjudication

and the termination order, and nothing changed. There is no reason to believe

that six more months will lead to a different outcome. See In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d

100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (“[W]e 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.” (citation omitted)).

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

       AFFIRMED.