Court Opinion

ID: 9907483
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 16:06:53.267013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:56:45.298216
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                     No. 23-1123
                               Filed December 6, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF L.S. and V.S.,
Minor Children,

T.T., Mother,
       Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

       Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Joan M. Black, District

Associate Judge.

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

       Robert W. Davison, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.

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

General, for appellee State.

       Robin L. Himes, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor

children.

       Considered by Bower, C.J., Buller, J., and Scott, S.J.*

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

(2023).
                                         2

SCOTT, Senior Judge.

      A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children, L.S.,

born in 2019, and V.S., born in 2019.1 She contends the State failed to prove the

grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court, termination is not in the best

interests of the children, and her parental rights should not be terminated due to

the closeness of the parent-child bond. Upon our review, we affirm.

I.    Background Facts and Proceedings

      This family came to the attention of the department of health and human

services in spring 2021,2 upon concerns about methamphetamine use by the

mother’s boyfriend, Josh, while caring for the children. There were also concerns

about a “nonaccidental” injury to L.S. reportedly caused by Josh, which resulted in

a founded child abuse assessment.        Even so, the mother and the children

continued living with Josh because she was unable “to secure her own housing.”

Shortly thereafter, the mother reported she “lost her housing” following a domestic

violence incident between her and Josh in the presence of the children.3 The

mother requested the children be placed in foster care “as she was currently

homeless, unemployed, and could not provide for them.”          The children were

removed from the mother’s custody and adjudicated in need of assistance.

      The court entered a dispositional order in October. The mother stipulated

to the children’s continued placement in family foster care. The guardian ad litem

1 The father’s parental rights were also terminated.   He does not appeal.
2 The department had been involved with the family in 2020, due to domestic

violence between the mother and the father. The mother had also been involved
with the department as a juvenile.
3 Also around that time, the mother was hospitalized “due to her mental health.”
                                          3

reported the mother “lacked the ability to distinguish between appropriate and

inappropriate caretakers for the children,” noting Josh was “not an appropriate

caretaker and she is living with him.” The guardian ad litem further noted the

mother had requested a visit to take place in Josh’s home “even though she has

been told that this cannot happen.”

       The mother gave birth to another child in April 2022.4 She reported Josh

was the father. The department continued to have “concerns of domestic violence

within their relationship.” The mother expressed “she fears Josh” and “struggle[s]

to want to keep him [versus] not wanting to keep him around her children.” The

guardian ad litem observed the mother was effectively living with Josh because

she was “only at her home if there are visits.” The mother was aware Josh was

not approved to be around the children. The mother also reported she was

“struggling with her mental health,” and the department assisted in arranging

additional therapy and services to address those concerns. The mother’s visits

with the children went well, and the mother was “caring and nurturing towards her

children.”

       Over the next few months, while the mother made “some progress,” she did

not “address[] the recommendations regarding her relationship with Josh” and she

effectively “chos[e] her relationship with Josh over her children.” The juvenile court

directed the State to initiate termination-of-parental-rights proceedings.

       A termination hearing took place in August. Following the hearing, the court

entered an order finding despite issues remaining that were a “barrier to

4 Her parental rights to that child are not at issue in this proceeding.
                                        4

reunification,” termination was not in the children’s best interests due to the

“significant” bond between the mother and the children.       The court therefore

ordered additional time to work toward reunification and continued the termination

hearing to January 2023.

       The court entered an order in February 2023 following the hearing. The

court noted the mother had “made some efforts, but there continue to be concerns

of domestic violence, a lack of true engagement in counseling services and

inconsistent drug testing.” But contrary to the department’s recommendation for

termination of the mother’s parental rights, the court granted the mother’s motion

to dismiss the termination petition. The court highlighted the mother’s testimony

“that her relationship with Josh is over” “because she now believes that it is an

unhealthy relationship.” However, the court directed the State to file another

termination petition.

       At the next termination hearing, which took place over two days in May and

June 2023, the mother acknowledged her youngest child, J.K., was removed from

her care in October after a domestic incident with Josh took place and police were

called. The mother acknowledged she left J.K. in Josh’s care unsupervised in

violation of the safety plan in that case. The mother’s visits with L.S. and V.S.

reverted to fully supervised. The mother testified she had decided at that point to

choose her children over Josh. But she detailed numerous domestic “incident[s]”

that had taken place between her and Josh since then, during which Josh

assaulted her and damaged her property. She had “no clue” whether Josh had

completed domestic-violence treatment. When asked at the termination hearing if

they were “currently together,” she answered, “Technically, yes.” She further
                                         5

testified, “There have not been any incidences since the last ones reported. . . . I

would like to keep showing everybody that we can be good.”              The mother

requested the children be returned to her custody.

       The court thereafter entered an order terminating the mother’s parental

rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2023) (as to V.S.) and (h) (as

to L.S). The court noted the mother had “engage[d] in services during the course

of these cases,” she had “obtained housing,” there were “no indicators that [she]

had used illegal substances,” and she “was very consistent in visiting with her

children.”   But sadly, the concerns about the mother’s relationship choices

remained. “As a result, the Court [could] not be assured of the[] [children’s] safety

if returned to [her] care.” The mother appeals.

II.    Standard of Review

       Appellate review of termination-of-parental-rights proceedings is de novo.

In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 293 (Iowa 2021).           Our paramount concern in

termination proceedings is the best interests of the children. In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d

521, 529 (Iowa 2019). We give weight to, but are not bound by, the juvenile court’s

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

III.   Grounds for Termination

       Regarding section 232.116(1)(f) and (h), the mother only challenges the

fourth element—whether the children could be returned to her custody. This

element is satisfied when the State establishes the children cannot be safely

returned to the parent at the time of the termination hearing. In re T.W., No. 20-

0145, 2020 WL 1881115, at *2–3 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2020). On this issue, the

mother claims “[t]here are minimal safety concerns regarding the children in [her]
                                         6

care” and her “home was available and would have been a more than adequate

placement.”

      At the time of the termination hearing, the children had been removed from

the mother’s care for nearly two years and her visits were semi-supervised. The

mother maintained she would not allow Josh around the children “[i]f [the

department] and the courts say no.”       But the mother has not heeded those

instructions in the past. She also promised “if it really comes down to it, I will

choose my kids.” But she acknowledged she had “no clue” how anyone “could be

sure of that.” And she conceded she “underst[oo]d why most people still have

concerns” and agreed she had given Josh “way too many more [second chances]

than [she] should have.” She stated this time she was “definitely putting [her] foot

down.”

      On this issue, the juvenile court found:

              The relationship between [the mother] and Josh has been a
      significant issue throughout these cases. Their relationship has
      been violent, verbally and physically. The couple has had numerous
      police contacts due to the volatility of their relationship. They have
      been requested to participate in couples counseling since the
      beginning of the [child-in-need-of-assistance] cases. Josh was very
      reluctant to do this. While he was incarcerated, he agreed but
      stopped again after his release. Josh has tested positive for illegal
      substances, even while on work release from the jail.
              [The mother] has repeatedly stated that if she had to, she
      would choose her children over Josh. In reality, [the mother] has
      consistently chosen Josh over her children. [The mother] has her
      own apartment, but she rarely stays in it. She uses it primarily for
      visitation. At times, [the mother] claims to fear Josh and states she
      is in the process of leaving him. The next report will be that she and
      Josh are together again. There have been times during these cases
      that [the mother] has asked that [L.S. and V.S.] be placed with her
      sister permanently so she can live with Josh full-time.
              There have also been consistent reports that while Josh
      would like to be in a relationship with [the mother] and have J.K.
      returned to their care, he does not want [V.S. and L.S.] to be part of
                                          7

       that family. This clearly creates a conflictual situation that is not
       easily remedied.
               It is clear that [the mother] has the ability to parent her
       children. There is a well reported bond between [the mother] and the
       children. They enjoy visits with her, they are happy to see her and
       are sad when the visits are over. However, it is equally clear that
       [the mother] is not willing or able to consistently place [L.S. and V.S.]
       as a priority in her life. As a result, the Court cannot be assured of
       their safety if returned to [the mother]’s care. The Court is unsure if
       this inability is related to untreated mental health issues or simply a
       choice she is making.

Based on these and the other facts detailed above, we concur with the court’s

assessment these children could not be returned to the mother’s custody at the

time of the termination hearing. Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) was

satisfied.

IV.    Best Interests

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

§ 232.116(2); In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011) (observing the defining

elements of the best-interests analysis are the children’s safety and need for a

permanent home). Contrary to the mother’s claim on appeal,5 we are convinced

the evidence proved termination serves the children’s best interests. “It 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.” In re P.L.,

778 N.W.2d 33, 41 (Iowa 2010). At the time of the termination hearing, the children

5  The mother blends the best-interests-of-the-children and exception-to-
termination issues by claiming termination is not in the best interests of the children
due to the strong bond she shares with them. As these are properly raised as two
separate issues, we address the mother’s claim as a challenge to both the best-
interests finding and the court’s declination to preserve the parental relationship
with the permissive exception provided in Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c).
                                          8

had been out of their mother’s custody for nearly two years. These children need

and deserve permanency and stability. See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 778 (Iowa

2012) (“It is simply not in the best interests of children to continue to keep them in

temporary foster homes while the natural parents get their lives together.” (citation

omitted)). Upon our review, we conclude termination serves the best interests of

the children.

V.     Parent-Child Bond

       The mother claims her parental rights should not be terminated “because of

the bond” she shares with the children.          See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c).

Application of the exception under paragraph (c) “requires clear and convincing

evidence that ‘termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the

closeness of the parent-child relationship.’” In re A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 169 (Iowa

2021) (quoting Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c)). On this issue, the juvenile court found:

               The children are three and fours years old. They have been
       out of the care and custody of their parents for nearly two years. . . .
       The mother has a strong bond with the children. However,
       apparently, her bond with [Josh] is more important to her. After
       nearly two years of services, the mother is once again on semi-
       supervised visitation. When an overnight visit was attempted with
       her youngest child, the police were called and the events of the
       weekend resulted in a removal. The court simply cannot continue to
       hope that [the mother] will make better choices for the best interest
       of her children. When a person shows you who they are, believe
       them. The Court believes that [the mother] loves her children, but
       will not prioritize their needs over her own wishes.

The guardian ad litem opined, “They have bonded with their mom. There’s no

doubt about that. They’re bonded with their sibling. But I do not think that it would

be detrimental to them if the termination happened.” The guardian ad litem added,
                                        9

“I just can’t see returning them today for a period to get in their home and long

enough that they probably don’t have good memories of being elsewhere.”

      Upon our review, we conclude the mother has failed to establish termination

of her rights will be detrimental to the children. We affirm the termination of the

mother’s parental rights.

      AFFIRMED.