In re K.M. ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1792
Filed January 24, 2018
IN THE INTEREST OF K.M.,
Minor Child,
A.B., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, Robert J. Dull,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.
AFFIRMED.
Robert B. Brock II of Law Office of Robert B. Brock II, P.C., Le Mars, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ana Dixit, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Meret Thali of the Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for
minor child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Bower, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, born in
2012. She contends the record does not support the grounds for termination cited
by the district court.
The district court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to several
statutory grounds. We may affirm if we find clear and convincing evidence to
support any of the cited grounds. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App.
1999). On our de novo review, we are persuaded termination was warranted under
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) (2017), which requires the State to prove the
following:
(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.
The provision states:
“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)(3).
3
The department of human services became involved with the family around
Thanksgiving of 2016, after receiving a complaint that the mother left her child
unattended. A department caseworker interviewed the child. She stated her
mother and her mother’s boyfriend spent time in the garage, she was not allowed
to go there, and she was left alone and scared inside the house.
The department caseworker went to the home with a law enforcement
officer, who suspected the residents were using illegal drugs. The mother denied
drug use and instructed the law enforcement officer to leave if he did not have a
search warrant.
A search warrant was obtained. The mother’s boyfriend admitted to recent
methamphetamine use. Although methamphetamine was not found inside, there
was no food in the refrigerator or freezer and limited staples in the cupboards. The
child’s grandmother informed the department utilities in the home were
disconnected for nonpayment, she paid to have them reconnected, and she also
purchased milk and cereal and opened the packaging to make it accessible to the
child without further adult assistance.
The State applied to have the child temporarily removed from the home.
The district court granted the application “to avoid imminent danger to the child’s
health or life.” The child was transferred to the department’s custody and was
placed in her father’s home, where she remained for the balance of the
proceedings.
The department concluded its child abuse investigation and issued a
founded report for “denial of critical care—failure to provide proper supervision.”
4
The district court adjudicated the child in need of assistance and ordered custody
to remain with the department for relative or other placement.
The mother acknowledged the department’s efforts to contact her about
participation in reunification services. She left a message expressing a willingness
to provide a urine sample for drug testing but, when testing was offered, she
declined. Additional drug-testing attempts were made, to no avail.
The department sent a letter to the mother and her attorney outlining the
agency’s continued recommendation for services. The mother remained
recalcitrant. She failed to attend a scheduled appointment for a social investigation
and refused to answer her door when department employees visited. Although
she testified to unsuccessful attempts at electronic contact with the father, she
made no effort to follow through with the prerequisites to obtaining supervised
visits with the child.
Six months after the department intervened, the district court granted the
guardian ad litem’s request for a finding of aggravated circumstances. The court
ordered the termination of the department’s obligation to make reasonable efforts
toward reunification after finding the mother “completely abdicated her parental
responsibilities as to [the child] and . . . abandoned her.” See id. § 232.102(14)(a).1
In total, the mother had no in-person or telephone contact with the child for
eleven months. We conclude the State proved the absence of significant and
1
The provision states in pertinent part:
If the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that aggravated
circumstances exist, with written findings of fact based upon evidence in
the record, the court may waive the requirement for making reasonable
efforts. The existence of aggravated circumstances is indicated by any of
the following:
a. The parent has abandoned the child.
5
meaningful contact with the child. We affirm the termination of the mother’s
parental rights to the child under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e).
AFFIRMED.