Court Opinion

ID: 9959030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 16:06:06.355635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:23.736905
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                   No. 24-0186
                               Filed April 10, 2024

IN THE INTEREST OF E.W., E.W., and C.M.,
Minor Children,

A.R., Mother,
       Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Paul G. Crawford,

Judge.

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

      Christopher A. Clausen of Clausen Law Office, Ames, for appellant mother.

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

General, for appellee State.

      Mary Cowdrey of Public Defender’s Office, Marshalltown, attorney and

guardian ad litem for minor children.

      Considered by Bower, C.J., Schumacher, J., and Vogel, S.J.*

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

(2024).
                                         2

VOGEL, Senior Judge.

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

children—born     in   2013,   2017,    and   2020—pursuant       to    Iowa   Code

section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2023).1 Citing her ability to “succeed in a prior

case,” we conclude her sole argument preserved for appeal is that she should have

been granted additional time for reunification, claiming “[i]t would be best to have

allowed the full time for [her] to prove herself and hopefully not relapse.” 2 We

review this claim de novo. See In re Z.K., 973 N.W.2d 27, 32 (Iowa 2022). Our

primary concern in conducting this review is the children’s best interests. In re

L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022).

       While a deferral of permanency is authorized when the juvenile court can

conclude the need for removal will no longer exist at the end of the extension, the

mother has failed to present any “specific factors, conditions, or expected

behavioral changes which [would] comprise the basis for the determination that

the need for removal . . . will no longer exist at the end of” the requested

extension. See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). It is not our role to advocate what

circumstances would warrant an extension on the mother’s behalf, and we decline

to do so. See In re A.A.G, 708 N.W.2d 85, 92 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005); see also

1 The parental rights of the children’s fathers were also terminated.Neither father
appeals.
2 While the mother references the statutory grounds for termination and the statute

on best interests, Iowa Code section 232.116(2), she does not develop an
argument concerning either issue. Random mention of an issue does not prompt
appellate review. See Soo Line R. Co. v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 521 N.W.2d 685,
697 (Iowa 1994).
                                           3

Inghram v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co., 215 N.W.2d 239, 240 (Iowa 1974).              We

therefore deem her request for an extension waived.

       But even if we were to reach the issue, we would conclude additional time

is not warranted because the mother’s past performance as shown by the following

pertinent facts does not convince us that additional time or services will change

her. See In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 1990). The children first came to

the attention of the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services in July 2021

due to the mother’s use of methamphetamine. All three children tested positive

for the substance. They were removed on July 21 and later adjudicated as children

in need of assistance (CINA). The mother eventually turned things around, the

children were returned to her custody in July 2022, and the cases were closed in

October.

       Less than a week later, concerns arose about the condition of the family

home, domestic violence, and substance use, which prompted the initiation of

family-preservation services. New CINA cases were then opened in November

after the mother and children tested positive for methamphetamine.                On

November 16, the children were again removed and soon thereafter adjudicated

CINA. From there, the mother’s participation in drug testing was spotty, as were

her test results. In December, the mother tested negative on one occasion but

then was a “no-show” for the remainder of her tests that month. She tested

negative on four occasions but failed to appear twice in January and

February 2023.      She    then   tested       positive   for   methamphetamine   and

amphetamines in late March. She failed to appear for her next two drug tests in

April, which were then followed by an invalid test result later that month.
                                          4

       Meanwhile the mother was not participating in substance-use treatment.

She did undergo a substance-use evaluation in late April and received a

recommendation for inpatient treatment, but the mother did not follow that

recommendation. She then did not attend any of her appointments with her

substance-use therapist over the next several months. The mother also failed to

appear for her drug tests in May. She provided two urinalysis tests in June and

one in July that were negative for drugs, however her June hair-stat test was

positive for methamphetamine.

       By July, the department recommended the commencement of termination

proceedings given the mother’s lack of progress. The court agreed in its ensuing

permanency-review order, and the State filed its petitions later that month. The

mother did not appear for her next drug test in July, tested negative for drugs later

that month, then tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines in early

August.    The remainder of the mother’s drug tests before the September

termination hearing included a negative test and two failures to appear in August,

a negative test in early September in relation to which “the collector indicated that

the specimen was not within the normal range,” and then two more failures to

appear. The mother largely failed to participate in recommended mental-health

treatment throughout the proceedings as well. The combined permanency-review

and termination-of-parental-rights case came on for hearing on September 28.

       On the question of additional time in its termination ruling, the juvenile court

acknowledged the mother’s success in the first proceeding but recognized “[t]his

time around her behavior has been different.” Based on the mother’s failure to
                                        5

meaningfully participate in services, the court concluded “that six months from now

we would likely be in the same position we are in now.”

      On our review, we summarily agree with the juvenile court. The mother

continued to test positive for methamphetamine as late as one month before the

termination hearing. See, e.g., In re M.H., No. 23-0977, 2023 WL 5092471, at *3

(Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2023) (denying request for additional time where mother

tested positive for methamphetamine and did not participate in treatment in the

month leading up to the termination hearing); In re S.J., No. 15-1522, 2016

WL 1133893, at *2–3 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2016) (affirming denial of additional

time where parents tested positive for drugs two months before termination

hearing); In re M.F., No. 10-1344, 2010 WL 3894639, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 6,

2010) (concluding “a deferral of termination for six months was not warranted”

when parent tested positive for drugs four months before the termination hearing).

“Given the mother’s long history of substance abuse and unquestionably [near]

continuous use throughout these proceedings, she would need to demonstrate

maintenance of sobriety for a long period of time before the child[ren] could be

[safely] placed in her care, certainly longer than six months.”        In re S.J.,

No. 21-0238, 2021 WL 1904646, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 12, 2021).

      Because additional time is not warranted, we affirm.

      AFFIRMED.