Court Opinion

ID: 9365980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 17:03:59.990443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:48.592797
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                    No. 22-1249
                              Filed January 25, 2023

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

B.C., Father,
       Appellant,

E.S., Mother,
       Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

       Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott D.

Strait, District Associate Judge.

       A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental

rights to a child born in 2021. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

       Roberta J. Megel of the State Public Defender Office, Council Bluffs, for

appellant father.

       J. Joseph Narmi, Council Bluffs, for appellant mother.

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

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

       Eric A. Checketts, Glenwood, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.

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

VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.

       A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental

rights to a child born in 2021. The mother and father (I) challenge the evidence

supporting the grounds for termination cited by the district court; (II) contend the

Iowa Department of Health and Human Services did not engage in reasonable

efforts to facilitate reunification; and (III) argue the district court should not have

terminated their parental rights based on the parent-child bond. The mother also

contends (IV) termination is not in the child’s best interests, (V) she should have

been afforded additional time to work toward reunification, and (VI) the district court

should not have terminated her parental rights because the child was placed with

a relative.

I.     Grounds for Termination

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

statutory provisions. We may affirm if we find clear and convincing evidence to

support any of the grounds. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App.

1999). We elect to focus on Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2022), which

requires proof of several elements, including proof the child cannot be returned to

parental custody.

       The facts triggering department involvement are essentially undisputed. At

the time of the child’s birth, the mother tested positive for methamphetamine and

the active ingredient in marijuana. The child also tested positive. The child was

discharged to the care of a relative, where she remained throughout the

proceedings.
                                          3

       The State filed a child-in-need-of-assistance petition naming the mother’s

husband and another man as possible fathers. The husband eventually divorced

the mother, and his paternity was disestablished. The other man was served by

publication, and he appeared through counsel at the adjudicatory hearing and

personally and with counsel at the remaining hearings.

       The mother admitted to ongoing drug use. She refused to submit to drug

testing and spent a single day in a residential drug treatment program before

leaving against the advice of staff.     Although the department allowed her to

exercise daily visits with the child under her relative’s supervision, the case

manager testified the mother would go “several days to around two weeks without

contacting” the relative or visiting the child. At the time of the termination hearing,

the mother was staying with her mother, who also used methamphetamine and

whose house had just been sold, requiring them to move. The case manager who

oversaw the case from the time of the child’s birth through termination testified the

child could not be returned to the mother’s custody.

       As for the biological father whose paternity was ultimately established, he

spent several months in jail. On his release, he commendably made efforts to

have supervised visits with the child, and those visits went well. But he conceded

he needed a few more months to be in a position to have the child returned to his

custody. That concession foreclosed reunification. See W.M., 957 N.W.2d at 313

(focusing on return “at the time of the termination hearing”).

       On our de novo review, we agree with the district court that the parents were

not in a position to have the child returned to their custody.
                                        4

II.    Reasonable Efforts

       The department has an obligation to make reasonable efforts to facilitate

reunification. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000). The parents

generally assert the department failed to fulfill that obligation. On our de novo

review, we disagree.     The department afforded the mother residential drug

treatment, drug testing, and daily supervised visits with the child. The mother

minimally availed herself of these services. The department also afforded the

father the same services, except while he was incarcerated. While the father took

advantage of these services—placing himself on a wait list for residential

treatment, testing negative for drugs, and participating in supervised visits—his

participation came too late. Id. at 495. By his own admission, he used drugs three

months before the termination hearing and was arrested for a no-contact violation

around that time. He was only released from jail two months before the termination

hearing. These circumstances were of his own making.

       We conclude the department satisfied its reasonable-efforts obligation.

III.   Parent-Child Bond

       The court may grant an exception to termination based on the parent-child

bond. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). The mother testified to a strong bond with

the child. The father also testified to a bond but acknowledged he only had three

months to develop a relationship with his daughter. Given the parents’ insufficient

progress toward safe, independent parenting, we conclude the district court

appropriately denied this exception to termination.
                                          5

IV.    Best Interests

       The mother argues termination was not in the child’s best interests. See id.

§ 232.116(2). We disagree. The mother could not safely parent the child. As the

department reported, “[she] has minimally participated in services but has not been

able to meet any of the goals set for her.” We agree with the district court that

termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests.

V.     Additional Time

       The mother contends she should have been afforded additional time to

reunify. See In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 323 (Iowa 2021) (“[T]he juvenile court

may deny termination and give the parent an additional six months for reunification

only if the need for removal ‘will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-

month period.’” (quoting Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b))).           The case manager

recommended against additional time, testifying it was “not really fair” to the child

that the mother was “unable to address” her “addiction and other behaviors in” the

“11 months” of the child’s life. We agree.

VI.    Placement with Relative

       The mother argues the district court should not have terminated her

parental rights because the child was placed with a relative. See Iowa Code

§ 232.116(3)(a). The relative did not have legal custody of the child. Accordingly,

the exception was not applicable. See In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 170 (Iowa

2021) (“[T]his exception can come into play only when a relative has ‘legal

custody.’” (citing Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(a))).

       We affirm termination of the parents’ rights to the child.

       AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.