Court Opinion

ID: 9369344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 16:05:36.431512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:14.322021
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                  No. 22-1754
                             Filed February 8, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF C.W., P.W., and R.W.,
      Minor Children,

C.L., Mother,
       Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

       Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Michael E. Motto,

District Associate Judge.

       A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three children.

AFFIRMED.

       Barbara E. Maness of Kimball-Stevenson House, Davenport, for appellant

mother.

       Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena (until

withdrawal) and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee State.

       Rebecca C. Sharpe, Bettendorf, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor

children.

       Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Buller, JJ.
                                         2

VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.

       A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three children

born in 2009, 2012, and 2014. She contends (1) the State failed to prove the

ground for termination cited by the district court and (2) termination was not in the

children’s best interests.

       The district court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa

Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2022), which requires proof of several elements,

including proof the child could not be returned to parental custody. The department

of health and human services intervened in 2020 after the children’s father was

arrested for possession of methamphetamine. Several months later, the children’s

mother tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. The children were

transferred to the care of a friend.

       The State filed a petition to have the children adjudicated in need of

assistance. The district court granted the petition, and the children were formally

placed with the friend. They were later transitioned to foster care.

       The mother underwent a substance-abuse evaluation, which revealed

diagnoses of severe Xanax-use disorder, severe methamphetamine-use disorder,

and moderate cannabis-use disorder.          She was accepted into an inpatient

treatment program but left after ten days.              She tested positive for

methamphetamine and the active ingredient in marijuana in late 2021 and again in

the spring of 2022 and she missed multiple drug tests. At the termination hearing,

the department social work case manager was asked whether the mother could

meet the children’s needs; he responded, “No.” See In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100,

111 (Iowa 2014) (stating the issue was whether the child could be returned to
                                         3

parental custody at the time of the hearing). He noted that she was “still using

methamphetamine,” which was “why the kids were removed from her in the first

place.” When asked if the mother made progress toward reunification during an

additional six-month period the district court granted, the case manager said she

provided more positive drug tests during the extension period.

       The mother essentially agreed with the case manager. When asked if it

would be in the children’s best interests to have them returned to her care, she

responded, “At this time, no.” Although she cited her housing situation rather than

her ongoing drug use, her testimony, together with the evidence of missed and

positive drug tests, established that the children could not be returned to her

custody.

       Termination must also be in the children’s best interests. See Iowa Code

§ 232.116(2). As noted, the mother acknowledged it was not in the children’s best

interests to have them returned to her custody immediately. On appeal, the mother

points to her bond with the children as grounds for reversal.       Her argument

implicates an exception to termination set forth in Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c)

rather than the best-interests prong of the analysis.

       The mother testified she and the children were “so bonded” because all they

had “ever had was each other.” The case manager did not dispute the assertion.

At the same time, he reported that her “relationship and bond with the children [ ]

continued to deteriorate due to her actions and choices.” The mother failed to

counter the assertion by presenting clear and convincing evidence that termination

“would be detrimental to” the children in light of the bond.      See Iowa Code

§ 232.116(3)(c).
                                         4

       The district court order terminating the mother’s parental rights to the three

children is affirmed.

       AFFIRMED.