Court Opinion

ID: 9554589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 15:07:24.053772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:36.553654
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                   No. 23-0902
                               Filed August 9, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF G.S.,
Minor Child,

J.J., Mother,
       Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

       Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens,

Associate Juvenile Judge.

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

       Ryan J. Mitchell of Orsborn, Mitchell & Goedken, P.C., Ottumwa, for

appellant mother.

       Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Natalie Hedberg, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

       Samuel K. Erhardt of Erhardt & Erhardt, Ottumwa, attorney and guardian

ad litem for minor child.

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

BOWER, Chief Judge.

       A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. Finding no basis

for an extension and determining a guardianship is not in the child’s best interests,

we affirm.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings.

       J.J. is the mother of G.S., born in 2021. 1         G.S. tested positive for

methamphetamine at birth. 2 The child was discharged from the hospital to relative

placement and has never been in the mother’s physical custody.

       The mother resided with the child and the custodial relative for a short time,

but she was unable to maintain sobriety and left. She was given the opportunity

to visit as much and as long as she wanted, supervised by the relative placement.

Initially, she visited frequently, but over time her visits decreased and became

intermittent because of health and substance-abuse issues. Some of her health

issues stemmed from domestic violence by the child’s father.

       In January 2022, as part of the child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA)

adjudication order, the court ordered the mother to “complete a mental health

evaluation and follow all professional recommendations”; “complete a substance

abuse evaluation and follow the recommendations”; “not use alcohol, illegal

substances, or possess any drug paraphernalia”; and to “participate in drug testing

as required.”

1 The father’s parental rights were also terminated.   He does not appeal.
2 The mother’s first child, born in 2019, also tested positive for methamphetamine

exposure at birth. That child is in a legal guardianship with a maternal relative.
                                         3

       The mother was accepted into family treatment court. Her mental-health

treatment attendance was inconsistent, and she did not participate in domestic

violence services. Although she scheduled multiple substance-abuse evaluations,

she did not follow recommendations and was discharged from or did not begin

scheduled treatment programs. The mother often refused or did not show up for

drug testing, would not respond to attempted contacts by caseworkers, and

maintained an on-and-off relationship with the child’s father despite a history of

domestic violence and a no-contact order in place throughout the case.

       In December, the mother gave birth to another child, and both the mother

and child tested positive for methamphetamine. The mother and baby once again

moved in with her relative, where she cared for the new baby and assisted caring

for G.S. However, she would leave the house at night and not return until the early

morning hours, and she moved back out in late January. The youngest child was

adjudicated CINA, removed from the mother, and placed in the relative’s care. The

mother visits and helps with the children most days.

       The juvenile court found the child could not be returned to the care of the

mother at the time of the hearing and found an extension for reunification was not

warranted. The juvenile court held a guardianship was not in the child’s best

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

232.116(1)(h) (2023).3

3
  For the juvenile court to terminate a parent’s rights under section 232.116(1)(h),
the State must establish:
              (1) The child is three years of age or younger.
              (2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of
       assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
                                          4

II. Standard of Review.

       “We review termination of parental rights de novo.” In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d

305, 312 (Iowa 2021). We give weight to, but are not bound by, the juvenile court’s

findings of fact. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018).

III. Analysis.

       We normally use a three-step analysis to review the termination of parental

rights considering the grounds for termination, the best interests of the child, and

if an exception to termination should apply. Id. at 472–73; see also Iowa Code

§ 232.116. We need not discuss any step the parent does not dispute. See In re

P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010).

       On appeal, the mother does not challenge the ground for termination of her

parental rights or claim an exception to termination should apply. Rather, she

asserts the court should have granted her additional time for reunification,

termination is not in the child’s best interests, and the court should have placed the

child in a guardianship.

       Extension. The mother argues she is “actively participating in visitations

and her sobriety.” She states an extension should be granted to place G.S. on the

same timeline as her child born in December 2022.

               (3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of
       the child’s parents for at least six months of the last twelve months,
       or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home
       has been less than thirty days.
               (4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child
       cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided
       in section 232.102 at the present time.
                                          5

       In order to grant an extension, the juvenile 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).

       Following the birth of the youngest child in December 2022 and the filing of

the termination petition, the mother made efforts to help care for the children and

arranged for treatment again. However, the mother has not shown an ability to

care for the child on her own or sustain positive change in any needed area.

Without any demonstrated change in behavior, the court had no basis to grant an

extension.

       Guardianship. The mother’s arguments as to the child’s best interests and

in favor of guardianship overlap, and we address them together. The mother

explains her older child is in a guardianship under the relative’s care, and the

guardianship has been successful to date. Therefore, she argues, G.S. should

similarly be placed in a guardianship. She speculates the children will be confused

why the parents’ rights are terminated as to G.S. and intact as to the older child.

       “[A] guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative to termination.” In re

B.T., 894 N.W.2d 20, 32 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). Relevant factors in determining

whether to terminate parental rights or place a child in a guardianship include the

child’s age, the length of the removal, the viability of other permanency options,

and the relationship between the parent and guardian. See A.S., 906 N.W.2d at

478; B.T., 894 N.W.2d at 34. A guardianship requires a written report to the court

every six months and is inherently uncertain as, at any time, a parent can challenge
                                            6

the guardianship or the court could appoint a different guardian. See Iowa Code

§§ 232.117–.118; A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 477–78.

        The relative placement testified she was willing to be guardian to the child

but would adopt the child in the case of termination. The relative stated either way,

the child would “be in the same home with the same people and doing the same

thing every day at my house regardless of adoption or guardianship.”                  The

guardian’s primary concern was to keep the child with the older sibling because of

their strong bond.

        The mother’s history shows cyclical behavior. First, she is attentive to the

child, obtains substance-abuse evaluations and arranges treatment, and attends

her mental-health and medication management appointments.                     Next, she

becomes unreliable in visitation attendance, stops going to treatment, and spends

time with the father. Then, the cycle begins again; this pattern has continued since

2019.

        When considering the possibility of guardianship, the juvenile court stated,

                 While it is true that [G.S.’s] sibling, [J.], is in a guardianship
        there was never formal juvenile court action in that case. Given the
        history shown here had the juvenile court assumed jurisdiction in
        [J.’s] case it is quite likely her case would have ended much like
        [G.S.’s] case. Simply because [J.’s] guardians beat the department
        to the courthouse and established a guardianship for her does not
        mean guardianship is the most appropriate solution for [G.S.].
                 By their very nature, guardianships can be modified or
        terminated. So placing [G.S.] in a guardianship would prevent her
        from reaching the permanency she deserves. Aside from [J.’s]
        guardianship status neither parent has offered a compelling reason
        [G.S.’s] case warrants establishment of a guardianship instead of
        termination.
                 In sum, given the age of the child, the length of time the child
        has been removed, the lack of any substantial progress toward
        reunification, and the availability of other viable permanency options
        it is clear guardianship would not be appropriate.
                                           7

       The placement is the only home the child has ever known, and the child

looks to the relative as the primary caregiver. “[I]t 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.” W.M., 905 N.W.2d at 314 (citation

omitted). The child deserves a full-time parent who places the child’s interests

above her own. The mother has yet to do so. Permanency for the child and the

child’s interests are best served through termination of parental rights and adoption

rather than a guardianship. We affirm.

       AFFIRMED.