Court Opinion

ID: 9926373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 17:05:31.120391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:44.058699
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                     No. 23-1631
                               Filed January 24, 2024

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

J.R., Mother,
       Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

       Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, Scott Strait, District

Associate Judge.

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

AFFIRMED.

       Eric A. Checketts of Checketts Law, PLC, Glenwood, for appellant mother.

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

General, for appellee State.

       Amanda Heims of Amanda Heims Law, Council Bluffs, attorney and

guardian ad litem for minor child.

       Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Badding, J., and Blane, S.J.*

       *Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2024).
                                         2

BLANE, Senior Judge.

       A mother appeals termination of her parental rights to her infant daughter.

We affirm.

       When A.M. was born in December 2022, her umbilical cord tested positive

for amphetamine and methamphetamine. Her mother’s urine screen was positive

for those drugs as well. A.M. was removed from the mother and father’s care,1

and placed with a foster family until about six months later, when she transitioned

to a pre-adoptive placement. A.M. has serious medical impairments because of

her exposure to drugs in utero. The foster parents have seen to it that she receives

appropriate medical attention and therapies.        The biological parents never

attended her medical appointments.2

       The court ordered the parents to participate in family-centered services,

obtain mental-health and substance-abuse treatment, and submit to random drug

screens, none of which the parents did. Service providers reported trying to

contact the parents weekly without success. Contact went little beyond a few

phone calls and texts. The parents moved and changed phone numbers several

times, and through most of the case their whereabouts were unknown. The

parents have not seen A.M. since they left the hospital after her birth. They never

scheduled or attended visitation, although the Department of Health and Human

Services offered two visits per week.

1 The father’s rights were also terminated.   He does not appeal.
2 According to the record, A.M.’s various medical providers desired to have health

information from the parents, particularly the mother, that would help in diagnosing
and treating A.M.’s numerous medical issues. The mother had no prenatal care,
so those records were not available.
                                         3

       The State petitioned for termination of parental rights, and the court held a

hearing in August 2023.     Neither parent appeared.3     The department worker

testified that the parents requested drug tests in July. The worker scheduled one

but the parents failed to attend. They appeared for the July drug tests in August,

but they had to be rescheduled. The worker scheduled tests a few days later, and

the parents again failed to attend. The mother also obtained a substance-abuse

evaluation a couple of weeks before the hearing recommending extensive

outpatient treatment. But she did not follow up.

       The court-appointed special advocate (CASA) reported that A.M. is doing

well in her pre-adoptive home and is “happy, smiling, and interacting” with her

foster parents and foster siblings “for both entertainment and comfort.” The foster

parents continue to address her serious medical needs. The CASA recommended

termination of the parents’ rights. The child’s guardian ad litem agreed. The court

terminated the mother’s rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1) (2023),

paragraphs (e) and (h). She appeals.

       We review termination proceedings de novo.               In re L.B., 970

N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022). We give weight to the juvenile court’s fact findings,

but they do not bind us. Id. Our top concern is the child’s best interests. Id.; see

3 The court continued an earlier termination trial, finding that the parents had not

been served properly. At the rescheduled trial, the court denied both parents’
counsels’ requests for a continuance. Although the mother discusses the situation
in her brief, she raises no issues about the adequacy of service or the continuance.
At the hearing, mother’s counsel advised the court on the record that he had
spoken with her that morning, she was aware of the hearing and wanted to attend.
There was no explanation why she did not attend.
                                         4

also In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 294 (Iowa 2021) (explaining the “three-step

analysis” for review of termination-of-parental-rights appeals).

       Statutory Ground for Termination: paragraph (e).4           The mother first

challenges whether the State proved the statutory grounds for termination of her

rights. See In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219 (Iowa 2016) (requiring proof of

statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence). The mother neither sets out

nor asserts any facts in the record to support the argument that the State failed to

prove the grounds under paragraph (e), so we deem the issue waived. Iowa Ct.

R. 6.903(2)(g)(3) (requiring that appellate arguments contain “citations to the

authorities relied on and references to the pertinent parts of the record” and

providing “[f]ailure to cite authority in support of an issue may be deemed waiver

of that issue”); see also L.N.S. v. S.W.S., 854 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013)

(“Where a party has failed to present any substantive analysis or argument on an

4 To prove termination is appropriate under paragraph (e), the State must show:

              (1) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of
      assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
              (2) The child has been removed from the physical custody of
      the child’s parents for a period of at least six consecutive months.
              (3) There is clear and convincing evidence that the parents
      have not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child
      during the previous six consecutive months and have made no
      reasonable efforts to resume care of the child despite being given
      the opportunity to do so. For the purposes of this subparagraph,
      “significant and meaningful contact” includes but is not limited to the
      affirmative assumption by the parents of the duties encompassed by
      the role of being a parent. This affirmative duty, in addition to
      financial obligations, requires continued interest in the child, a
      genuine effort to complete the responsibilities prescribed in the case
      permanency plan, a genuine effort to maintain communication with
      the child, and requires that the parents establish and maintain a
      place of importance in the child’s life.
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e).
                                         5

issue, the issue has been waived.”). We affirm termination on paragraph (e). See

In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). As to the statutory grounds, we

could stop here, but we elect to also address 232.116(1)(h).

       Statutory Ground for Termination: paragraph (h).5 Next, the mother argues

the child could have been placed with her at the time of the termination hearing.

She contends the State failed to present evidence that the mother posed any threat

of harm to the child or that she would not be well cared for.

       The record provides clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be

returned to the mother at the present time. See In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 111

(Iowa 2014) (defining “at the present time” to mean at the time of the termination

hearing). A.M. has serious health issues because of the mother’s drug use. The

mother’s substance-abuse       evaluation    recommended        extensive   outpatient

treatment, which the mother didn’t get. The mother never tested for drugs, so we

cannot say that she is sober. She never obtained a mental-health evaluation

either. She didn’t communicate with the department, so we don’t know if she has

a stable home. She has no familiarity with A.M.’s considerable medical needs.

And she has not seen A.M. since her birth. A.M. cannot be returned safely to her

5 To prove termination is appropriate under paragraph (h), the State must show:

              (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.
              (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.
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h).
                                          6

mother’s custody at the present time.         Termination was appropriate under

paragraph (h).

       Best Interests and Statutory Exceptions.       Next, the mother argues the

child’s best interests weigh strongly against termination: “A child’s best interest is

served by being in the care and nurture of her biological mother. . . . [T]ermination

would be detrimental to A.M. for this reason.” But the mother cites neither facts in

the record nor any authority other than Iowa Code section 232.116, subsections

(2) and (3) to support this claim. And she asserts, “The court has discretion based

on the unique circumstances of each case and the best interests of the child,

whether to apply the factors in Iowa Code Section 232.116(3) to save the parent-

child relationship.” But she does not cite what circumstances in A.M.’s case

warrant exercise of that discretion. We find she waived the argument.

       Reasonable Efforts. Finally, the mother contends the State failed to make

reasonable efforts toward reunification. She argues the department did not work

with her to maximize contact with her daughter.

       The mother does not state where she preserved error by asking for those

efforts before the termination hearing. See In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157, 166 n.3

(Iowa 2020) (finding parent waived reasonable-efforts claim when he never

objected to the sufficiency of the services in the juvenile court). Our review shows

she did not make such request. We deem the issue waived. See id.

       AFFIRMED.