Court Opinion

ID: 9400161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 16:06:29.384093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:42.520402
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                    No. 23-0583
                                Filed June 7, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF B.W. and J.W.,
Minor Children,

A.C., Mother,
       Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal    from    the    Iowa     District   Court   for   Winnebago   County,

Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.

      A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two

daughters. AFFIRMED.

      Cameron M. Sprecher of Sprecher Law Office, Mason City, for appellant

mother.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

      Carrie Jean Rodriguez of Garland & Rodriguez, Garner, attorney and

guardian ad litem for minor children.

      Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.
                                          2

SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge.

       A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children. She

argues there is insufficient evidence to support a statutory ground for termination,

termination is not in the children’s best interests, and the court should decline to

terminate her parental rights based on her close bond with the children. We find

clear and convincing evidence in this record to support a statutory ground for

termination. Termination is in the children’s best interests. And we, like the

juvenile court, decline to apply an exception to termination. Accordingly, we affirm.

I.     Background Facts & Proceedings

       B.W. was born in October 2009. She has cerebral palsy and is nonverbal.

Concerns were reported to the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS) about her hygiene and physical health, including matted hair and a low

weight of fifty pounds. B.W. was suffering from not having her needs met and

having difficulties consuming nutrition. J.W. was born in July 2013. Concerns were

also expressed about her care given the conditions of the home and her physical

appearance. A child-abuse assessment was founded for denial of critical care with

both children listed as victims and the parents listed as the perpetrators of abuse in

March 2021.1 The assessment included information about the parents’ use of

methamphetamine.      Following the assessment, the parents were referred for

voluntary HHS services, in which they agreed to participate.

       Amid ongoing concerns of drug use by the parents, mental-health issues,

which included suicidal behavior, criminal activity, violence in the home, and a lack

1This family previously came to the attention of HHS in 2017, but services were
not recommended and there was no court involvement.
                                          3

of engagement in services, HHS requested an emergency removal order. Both

children were formally removed from parental custody in April 2021.             Also

supporting the formal removal was the receipt of a 911 call from the home. Upon

law enforcement arrival, the father was placed in handcuffs due to his

combativeness. Even after being placed in handcuffs, the father had to be sedated

by medical personnel. The mother was found passed out in the basement from

the consumption of alcohol or a combination of alcohol and controlled substances.

A marijuana pipe was located near the mother. The girls were inside the home.

J.W. had an injury on her head that required medical attention, caused by her

father kicking in the bathroom door where J.W. was hiding. Both parents were

transported to the hospital following this event.

       The children were initially placed with their maternal grandparents in

Minnesota. J.W. was moved to foster care pending an Interstate Compact on the

Placement of Children (ICPC) approval for the maternal grandparents. While the

grandparents worked to maintain B.W. in their home, the physical lifting and

moving of B.W. and the layout of the grandparents’ home, including the bathtub

being on the second story of the home, placed a strain on the placement and B.W.

       A second child-abuse assessment was completed in May 2021 naming both

parents as perpetrators of abuse with the children listed as victims for failure to

provide proper supervision. J.W. was also listed as a victim of abuse for physical

injury with her father listed as the perpetrator of the abuse. A request for a child-

in-need-of-assistance (CINA) petition was made by HHS.

       The   children   were    adjudicated    CINA    pursuant    to   Iowa   Code

section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2021) the month following the removal.          The children
                                        4

remained out of parental custody following the dispositional hearing held in July

2021, but J.W. was able to return to her maternal grandparents’ home in

Minnesota. B.W. was admitted to a specialized facility equipped to address her

medical needs. The facility made connections for updated medical appointments,

which included B.W. receiving a new wheelchair and being fitted for a new stander.

      The night of the dispositional hearing, the parents consumed a significant

amount of alcohol, the father drove the family vehicle through a wooded area,

causing substantial damage to the vehicle, and he assaulted the mother. The

father was arrested, and a no-contact order was issued. Shortly thereafter, the

mother admitted herself to the hospital for suicidal concerns. The mother tested

positive for methamphetamine in December and overdosed on January 22, 2022.

      A year after the initial removal, a permanency hearing was held in April

2022. The mother had lost her house due to a mortgage foreclosure. She provided

two negative drug tests but overdosed again on March 31, 2022. She was in a

vehicle accident and charged with operating while intoxicated when she tested

positive for fentanyl. The mother denied taking fentanyl but stated that she had

taken some oxycodone left over from an older prescription. Her drug patch from

April 7 was positive for cocaine.      HHS recommended additional time for

reunification services based on some recent progress with services by the mother.

The juvenile court adopted the recommendation.

      At a permanency review hearing held in August, HHS recommended that a

petition for termination be filed, but such recommendation was resisted by the

other parties. The mother had made some progress by moving into an apartment

but had another incident that required her hospitalization in May.     The court
                                         5

granted the parents another extension after the parents committed to necessary

progress.

      At a subsequent permanency review hearing held in December, while HHS

and the guardian ad litem recommended establishing a guardianship with the

maternal grandparents, the court ordered that a termination petition be filed,

concluding it was likely the recommended guardians would return the children to

the mother and that the proposed guardians could not detect when the mother was

under the influence of controlled substances.      The mother admitted to using

marijuana in November and abusing a prescription drug in December. She was

observed to be under the influence. The mother had also began dating a new

boyfriend who was observed to be under the influence, controlling, and threatening

the providers working with the mother.

      The State filed the ordered petition to terminate the parental rights of both

parents in mid-December 2022. A termination hearing was held in March 2023.

At the time of the termination hearing, the county attorney, HHS, and the guardian

ad litem supported termination of the parents’ parental rights. Following hearing,

the court terminated the mother’s parental rights to the children pursuant to Iowa

Code section 232.116(1)(f), (k), and (l) (2022). The mother filed a timely notice of

appeal. The father’s parental rights were also terminated. He does not appeal.

II.   Standard of Review

      We review the termination of parental rights de novo. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d

33, 39 (Iowa 2010). “We are not bound by the juvenile court's findings of fact, but

we do give them weight, especially in assessing the credibility of witnesses.” In re

D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010).
                                          6

III.   Statutory Ground for Termination

       The mother contends the State failed to establish a ground for termination

under section 232.116(1). On appeal, the mother challenges the court’s findings

as to all grounds relied on by the juvenile court.       “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 focus our de novo review on Iowa Code

section 232.116(1)(f). As to this ground, the mother only challenges the fourth

element–whether the children could be returned to her custody at the time of the

termination hearing. See D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707 (defining “at the present time”

as “at the time of the termination hearing”).

       Despite nearly two years of services, the mother’s contact with her children

remained fully supervised. The mother herself requires almost daily supports to

maintain a functioning level. She has been granted two previous court ordered

extensions of time for reunification efforts. By the time of the termination hearing,

the children had been out of parental custody for almost two years. While the

mother has engaged in some services, she continues to struggle with her

significant mental-health and substance-abuse issues. We determine on this

record the evidence is clear and convincing that the mother is not capable of safely

parenting and could not have the children placed in her custody at the time of the

termination hearing. We affirm as to this statutory ground.

IV.    Best Interests of the Children

       The mother claims termination of her parental rights is not in the children’s

best interests.   When considering a child’s best interests, we “give primary
                                           7

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).

       We conclude that termination is in the children’s best interests.         As

described above, the mother has not demonstrated she can manage the children’s

day to day needs. She is only able to manage her own needs with the assistance

of multiple providers on a daily basis. And even with those services, the mother

has continued to struggle in her sobriety and mental health.

       Since removal, both children are thriving. The children have remained out

of the home since the initial removal without any trial home placements. B.W.

remains in a specialized facility that is meeting her significant medical needs. She

has gained about twenty pounds since admittance. She now has a feeding tube,

which has assisted in her overall well-being. Prior to placement in the facility,

B.W.’s low weight caused her physical energy to be directed toward survival,

causing a lack of growth in other areas. She attends public school, which she

enjoys. As noted by the case manager for HHS, it is unlikely that B.W. will return

to a home setting. J.W. is placed with her maternal grandparents, where she is

doing well. It is anticipated, pending ICPC approval, both children will be adopted

by their maternal uncle and his wife. Even though this will require a move by J.W.,

the proposed placement has been involved with both children and this placement

is familiar to the children. Termination is in their best interests.

V.     Close Parent-Child Bond

       As part of her best-interests argument, the mother has also asserted that

an exception to termination should be applied due to her close bond with the
                                          8

children.2   We begin with noting that although Iowa Code section 232.116(3)

contains grounds that a juvenile court may invoke to preclude termination, such

statutory grounds are permissive, not mandatory.

       While a finding of any of these factors allows us to choose not to
       terminate parental rights, “[t]he factors weighing against termination
       in section 232.116(3) are permissive, not mandatory.” In re A.M.,
       843 N.W.2d 100, 113 (Iowa 2014) (quoting In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d
       458, 474–75 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011)). We may use our discretion,
       “based on the unique circumstances of each case and the best
       interests of the child, whether to apply the factors in this section to
       save the parent-child relationship.” Id. (quoting D.S., 806 N.W.2d at
       475).

In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 225 (Iowa 2016).

       We recognize our case law supports that the risk of losing a close bond,

even without outward manifestations of the harm, may meet the burden under

section 232.116(3)(c). See, e.g., In re M.S., 889 N.W.2d 675, 684 (Iowa Ct. App.

2016) (applying close-relationship exception when father had a “strong bond” with

the child, and provided “excellent and loving care for the child” during visitation);

In re J.C., No. 11–1936, 2012 WL 469807, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2012)

(finding mother met exception by displaying “extraordinary potential to be a

successful parent” in visitation with her son and the two possessed an “unusually

close relationship”).

       HHS, the guardian ad litem, and the court noted a bond between J.W. and

her mother. The contact between the mother and B.W. is significantly less, but the

mother has supported B.W.’s specialized placement.           But the juvenile court

2 The mother did not urge this exception to the juvenile court. The juvenile court,
did, however, address such in the termination order. We elect to reach the merits
concerning the permissive exception.
                                          9

highlighted that despite the bond, ongoing contact with the mother and J.W. would

“be detrimental to J.W.’s physical and emotional well-being.” And unlike the cases

in which our court has applied this exception to preclude termination, the mother

has not displayed “extraordinary potential to be a successful parent.”

Unfortunately, the mother has difficulty taking care of herself. With such a barrier,

a bond between herself and the children cannot outweigh the need for permanency

for the children after two years of services.

         And once the State has proved a ground for termination of parental rights,

the parent resisting termination bears the burden to establish an exception to

termination. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3); In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa

2018).    The parent's burden of proof on the bond exception is by clear and

convincing evidence. Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). The mother did not testify at

the termination hearing, did not call any witnesses, and did not offer any exhibits.

The only witness at the hearing was the HHS case manager, called by the State.

On this record, the mother has failed to meet her burden that termination of her

parental rights would be detrimental to the children. We, like the juvenile court,

decline to apply an exception from section 232.116(3) to preclude termination.

         AFFIRMED.