In the Interest of C.G., N.G., T.G., P.R. and B.R., Minor Children ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-1948
Filed February 8, 2023
IN THE INTEREST OF C.G., N.G., T.G., P.R. and B.R.,
Minor Children,
D.J-A., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner,
District Associate Judge.
The 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.
Annette F. Martin, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.
2
BULLER, Judge.
The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights for five children:
C.G., N.G., T.G., P.R., and B.R. The mother filed a bare-bones petition on appeal.
Even generously reading the petition on appeal, we find no basis to disturb the
juvenile court’s ruling and affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has a lengthy
history of involvement with this family, with founded reports of abuse against the
mother or the father1 dating back to 2014. Most relevant to this appeal is the HHS
investigation relating to domestic violence perpetrated between the father and the
mother, in the presence of the children, throughout 2020. Police were called to the
home for domestic violence on at least half a dozen occasions, some with reported
injuries. There were multiple reports of alcohol and drug abuse inside the home,
sometimes related to the domestic violence and sometimes independent of it.
HHS also made a founded report that the mother slapped one of the children so
hard that she left visible injuries.
During the HHS investigation, the mother generally made excuses for the
father and minimized the domestic violence. In July 2020, the mother briefly asked
the father to leave the home, but she soon changed her mind and invited him back
1All references to “the father” in this appeal refer to M.R., the biological father of
P.R. and B.R. M.R.’s parental rights were also terminated, and he has not
appealed. The juvenile court made findings about threats M.R. made toward
various providers during the life of the case, as well as his lack of interest in
maintaining any connection with the children. An HHS worker also testified that
M.R. had a lengthy substance-abuse history, “primarily meth.” C.G., N.G., and
T.G. have a different biological father, not relevant to this appeal.
3
to “work things out.” Less than two weeks later, police were called to the home
due to reports of the mother and father fighting. By August, the mother again told
HHS that the father would not be moving back into the home and agreed to a safety
plan effectuating the move. At one point, the mother obtained a civil no-contact
order against the father (who had by then left the state), but she allowed him to
visit her and the children nonetheless. Some months after that, the mother bought
the father a plane ticket back to Iowa. When the father arrived, the domestic
violence almost immediately resumed, again fueled by alcohol. Throughout this
time period, the mother was repeatedly dishonest with HHS about the status of her
relationship with the father.
The mother has a significant history of substance abuse. She completed
an outpatient treatment program in March 2021, but in April was arrested for
operating while intoxicated and criminal mischief. She passed some drug testing
around this time but missed approximately one-third of her testing appointments.
Sweat patches between August 2021 and May 2022 tested positive for
methamphetamine on one occasion and cocaine twice. The mother admitted
some but not all of the drug use to HHS, generally made inconsistent statements,
and denied all but one instance of cocaine use at trial. From September 2021 to
January 2022, the mother had multiple negative drug tests, but she again missed
about one-third of her testing appointments.
The mother also has a significant history of mental-health problems. In
December 2020, she was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety
and depressed mood, as well as a moderate episode of recurrent major depressive
disorder and anxiety. Although the mother participated in some mental-health
4
treatment, by November 2021 she was no longer taking medicine related to mental
health or attending therapy. In December 2021, the mother was diagnosed with
ADHD and the prescribed medication had a positive, albeit temporary, effect on
her progress toward reunification. By the time of the mother’s positive drug tests
in 2022, she reported she was no longer interested in the prescribed medication
and she stopped attending therapy.
The mother also has significant problems with judgment and inviting
dangerous men into the home and potentially exposing the children to them. In
addition to the substantial domestic-violence history with the father discussed
above, the mother invited one paramour into her home that stole from her; dated
another man who was in prison; allowed one of the children to view nude photos
and sexual messages on her iPad; and engaged in a relationship with a coworker
that concluded with the man stealing her vehicle and leaving bite marks on her
face. According to HHS, at least one of these men “has an extensive criminal
history of assault.”
The family had a tumultuous participation with services, and the mother
never progressed beyond semi-supervised visitation after the children were
removed from the home. Although the mother occasionally made intermittent
progress during the life of the case, her substance abuse and dishonesty caused
repeat setbacks and raised serious doubts about her ability to care for the children.
Even the children expressed concern about who would be there to “check on them”
if they were required to stay overnight with the mother in the future.
5
Following a contested hearing, the guardian ad litem joined the State in
requesting termination for all five children. The juvenile court followed that request,
and this appeal follows.
II. Standard of Review
We generally review an order to terminate parental rights de novo. In re
Z.K., 973 N.W.2d 27, 32 (Iowa 2022). “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.” Id. (quoting In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010)).
III. Discussion
The termination related to C.G., T.G., N.G., and P.R. is supported by Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2022). We agree with the State that it is unclear from
her petition exactly what the mother contests about the statutory elements. In any
event, we agree with the juvenile court that all elements were met. These children
were at least four years of age, they were adjudicated in need of assistance, they
have been out of parental custody since August 2020 (well in excess of twelve
months) with no trial periods at home, and there is clear and convincing evidence
the children cannot be returned to the parents. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f).
As to the last element, we are most persuaded the children cannot be returned to
the mother’s care due to the mother’s repeated drug use, dishonesty, failure to
address her mental-health and substance-abuse problems through therapy or
otherwise, and her repeated participation in domestic violence (including as an
offender and enabler). See id. § 232.116(1)(f)(4). Under our case law, we
presume that the numerous missed drug tests would have been positive for illegal
substances. See In re. R.A., No. 21-0746, 2021 WL 4891011, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App.
6
Oct. 20, 2021) (stating this proposition and collecting cases). We also agree with
the juvenile court that the mother lacks any significant insight into how her
behavior, relationships, and conduct have traumatized and endangered the
children, and it appears she has taken limited steps to rectify these concerns even
over the lengthy duration of the child-in-need-of-assistance and termination
proceedings. This offers good reason to think the mother’s past failure to provide
adequate care will continue in the future. See In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157, 171
(Iowa 2020) ("[T]he parents’ past performance . . . may indicate the quality of care
the parent is capable of providing in the future.” (citation omitted)).
The termination related to B.R. is supported by Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(h). The argument related to B.R. in the mother’s petition on appeal is
three sentences and a sentence fragment, none of which make a coherent legal
argument. To the extent the mother challenges termination for B.R., we agree with
the juvenile court that all of the statutory elements were met. At the relevant time,
B.R. was three or younger, he was adjudicated as a child in need of assistance,
he was removed from the mother’s physical care in August 2020 (well in excess of
six months before termination) with no trial periods at home, and there is clear and
convincing evidence he cannot be returned to the parents. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)(h). We are persuaded by largely the same evidence that supports
termination for the other children, including the volatile home life supplied by the
mother and the mother’s failure to adequately address her ongoing mental-health
or substance-abuse problems.
The mother also argues termination is not in the children’s best interests.
See id. § 232.116(2). Again, the mother’s repeated drug use, dishonesty, failure
7
to address her mental health and substance abuse, and domestic violence
convince us termination is in the children’s best interests. These children deserve
permanency. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 41 (Iowa 2010) (“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.”).
Finally, a block quote and related language in the mother’s petition could be
construed as a request to invoke the permissive bond exception at Iowa Code
section 232.116(3)(c). We assume without deciding that this issue was properly
preserved and adequately presented. The mother bears the burden of proof. In
re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018). While it is true that the mother
expressed the subjective belief that she has a strong bond with her children, there
is little support for that claim in the record. The more credible evidence is that the
domestic violence and the mother’s struggles with mental health and substance
abuse have undermined if not eliminated any meaningful bond. We also credit the
HHS worker’s testimony that there is a significant risk further contact with the
mother will only serve to re-traumatize the children. As a result, we find the mother
failed to carry her burden, decline to apply the permissive bond exception, and
affirm the termination.
AFFIRMED.