Court Opinion

ID: 9781103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:06:46.302438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:10:55.783128
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                  No. 23-0514
                             Filed August 30, 2023

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

F.M., Mother,
       Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

       Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher,

District Associate Judge.

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

       Teresa M. Pope of Pope Law, PLLC, Des Moines, for appellant mother.

       Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick (until withdrawal) and

Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee State.

       Jami Hagemeier of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, 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 to the child, A.M.,

pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) and (l) (2022).1 She challenges the

existence of grounds for termination and contends termination is not in the child’s

best interests.2 In the alternative, the mother asserts the court should have granted

her a six-month extension or placed the child in a guardianship with the maternal

grandmother, as either would avoid termination. We affirm.

       A.M. was born in May 2021 with an umbilical cord that tested positive for

cocaine and THC. The mother has a long history of substance abuse beginning

when she was fifteen years old.3 She has endured trauma and has a number of

psychiatric diagnoses. The child was removed from the mother’s custody by

ex parte order in June because the mother was not addressing her substance-

abuse and mental-health issues, she was struggling to care for the child, and there

were reports of physical violence in the home. The child has never returned to the

mother’s custody. On July 8, the child was adjudicated a CINA. The mother has

been offered numerous services; her engagement in those services has been

inconsistent at best. The mother has been fairly consistent visiting with the child,

1 “When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory

ground, we may affirm the juvenile court’s order on any ground we find supported
by the record.” In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). We elect to address
paragraph section 232.116(1)(h), which authorizes termination where a child three
years of age or younger has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA),
has been out of parental custody “for at least six months of the last twelve months,”
and cannot be returned to the parent without risk of adjudicatory harm.
2 The father’s paternity was not established until October 2022. His rights were

also terminated, and he does not appeal.
3 The mother was twenty-nine years of age when the termination hearing began.
                                         3

but visits remain fully supervised due to the mother’s failure to participate in drug

testing and admitted continuing usage.

       In the midst of the hearing on termination of the mother’s parental rights—

which spanned four court sessions on August 29, September 30, November 28,

and December 9, 2022—the mother provided a sweat patch that tested positive

for methamphetamine. At the December hearing, the mother testified she ceased

attending substance-abuse treatment and mental-health counseling in August or

September, believing her participation in medication management appointments

with her psychiatrist was enough.

       The juvenile court provided an extensive and detailed ruling outlining the

factual background of CINA and termination-of-parental-rights proceedings. The

court summarized,

               Due to her lack of engagement, the mother was taken off
       reoccurring appointments and was discharged from mental health
       services on December 16, 2022. She has not engaged in any
       substance dependency treatment since August 18, 2022. She had
       scheduled a session on November 9, 2022, but she was a no call/no
       show. Just a few days before the termination hearing, the mother
       attended the Des Moines University Clinic on November 22, 2022,
       for depression and discussed the following diagnoses: posttraumatic
       stress disorder, moderate recurrent major depression, stimulant
       dependence, mood disorder and long-term drug therapy. In addition
       to depression and stress disorder, the mother[’s] cannabis
       dependence and stimulant dependence status was “active”. The
       mother continues to be in denial about her substance dependency
       and was not accepting of her September 2022 drug screen patch that
       reflected use of THC and methamphetamine. The mother’s mental
       health has continued to be dysregulated. Just days before the
       hearing, the mother became very angry and her behavior was erratic.
       She has had some breakdown in communication with the current
       placement.

       On our de novo review, see A.B., 843 N.W.2d at 773, we determine the

juvenile court’s findings are fully supported by the record. At the time of the
                                         4

termination hearing—after more than a year of services—the mother had yet to

address her mental-health and substance-abuse issues sufficiently to provide a

safe, stable, and healthy home for her child. Any further extension of time to seek

reunification is unwarranted here, and we reject the mother’s claim she should

have been granted more time.4 There is clear and convincing evidence to support

termination of the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code 232.116(1)(h).

       We turn to whether termination is in the child’s best interests. We are to

“give primary consideration to the child’s safety, to the best placement for

furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of the child, and to the physical,

mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2);

accord J.E., 723 N.W.2d at 802 (Cady, J., concurring specially) (stating that a

child’s safety and the child’s need for a permanent home are the “defining

elements” in determining a child’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). A.M. has waited much

longer than the statutory period for the mother to address her substance-abuse

4 As our supreme court has stated:

       The “legislature has established a limited time frame for parents to
       demonstrate their ability to be parents.”          In re J.E., 723
       N.W.2d 793, 800 (Iowa 2006). The time frame is six months. See
       Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h). “Children simply cannot wait for
       responsible parenting.”      In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 175
       (Iowa 1997).
In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 474 (Iowa 2018).
                                         5

and mental-health issues; she cannot wait any longer for a permanent home and

responsible parenting. Termination and adoption are in the child’s best interests.

          The mother argues the court should grant a guardianship to the

grandmother and then apply the exception to termination found in Iowa Code

section 232.116(3)(a).5 But, “a guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative

to termination.” A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 477 (citation omitted). The impermanent

nature of guardianships denies the child the security and stability that a permanent

home provides. See id. at 477–78. The grandmother does not have legal custody;

consequently, the exception does not apply.              See In re A.M., 843

N.W.2d 100, 104, 113 (Iowa 2014) (noting the exception does not apply where the

child is placed with a relative but the department of health and human services has

legal custody of the child). We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental

rights.

          AFFIRMED.

5 Allowing a court to avoid termination when “[a] relative has legal custody of the

child.”