In the Interest of C.B. and B.B., Minor Children ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-1858
Filed February 22, 2023
IN THE INTEREST OF C.B. and B.B.,
Minor Children,
N.W., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County, Carrie K. Bryner,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Kristin L. Denniger, Mount Vernon, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Rebecca Williams, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.
2
AHLERS, Judge.
The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of both parents of C.B.
(born in 2010) and B.B. (born in 2013). Only the mother appeals.
We review termination-of-parental-rights rulings de novo. In re Z.K., 973
N.W.2d 27, 32 (Iowa 2022). Our review in such cases follows a three-step process
of determining whether (1) a statutory ground for termination exists, (2) termination
is in the best interests of the children, and (3) a permissive exception to termination
under Iowa Code section 232.116(3) (2022) should be applied to avoid
termination. In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219–20 (Iowa 2016). The mother
challenges the first two steps.
The court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(d) and (f). When termination is ordered on more than one
ground, we may affirm if the record supports termination on any of the grounds. In
re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). We choose to focus on ground (f),
which permits termination upon proof of four elements: (1) a child is four years of
age or older; (2) the child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance
(CINA); (3) the child has been removed from the physical custody of the child’s
parents for the last twelve consecutive months and any trial period at home has
been less than thirty days; and (4) there is clear and convincing evidence that the
child cannot be returned to a parent’s custody at the time of the termination
hearing. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f); In re A.C., No. 22-1443, 2022 WL 16986259,
at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2022). The mother challenges only the fourth
element, arguing the children could have been returned to her custody at the time
of the termination hearing.
3
After our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court that the children
could not be returned to the custody of their mother. This family has a history of
involvement with the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and
the juvenile court dating back to 2014. Such involvement started due to domestic
violence between and substance abuse by the parents. Previous CINA
proceedings were closed after a district court order placed the children in the
physical care of their father, with the mother having visitation. However, in early
2021, the family came back to the attention of HHS due to concerns about the
father using methamphetamine and the mother using prescription drugs not
prescribed to her. The parents refused to submit to drug testing, and the children
were removed from the parents’ custody in March. After CINA proceedings
started, the mother continued to refuse drug testing. But she admitted to a service
provider that, if she had submitted to testing, it would be positive for illegal
substances. The children were adjudicated CINA in May.
Over the ensuing months, the mother missed numerous requested drug
tests. When she did test, she was positive for methamphetamine, amphetamines,
and/or marijuana. After several negative tests in the late fall, the mother’s visits
with the children progressed from supervised to semi-supervised. This progress
was short-lived, as the mother again tested positive for methamphetamine in
December. Her visits went back to fully supervised—the level of supervision at
which visitation remained through the termination hearing in May 2022. In spite of
the positive test, the mother continued to deny using methamphetamine. She
submitted to a substance-abuse evaluation that recommended intensive outpatient
treatment. Although the mother started treatment, she was unsuccessfully
4
discharged from treatment about one month before the termination hearing. The
mother admitted that, when she has maintained a few months of sobriety,
something will happen that makes her “snap” and she will begin using again.
In addition to her untreated drug problem, the mother’s housing and
personal life were also unstable. She bounced from place to place, sometimes
living in her car or at campsites, and sometimes being homeless. She has not
been able to maintain steady employment.
All of these facts lead us to conclude the children could not be safely
returned to the mother’s custody. See A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 776 (“We have long
recognized that an unresolved, severe, and chronic drug addiction can render a
parent unfit to raise children.”); cf. In re R.A., No. 21-0746, 2021 WL 4891011, at *1
(Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2021) (collecting cases noting missed tests are presumed
positive for illegal substances); In re S.L., No. 19-0107, 2019 WL 1055689, at *2
(Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2019) (finding a child cannot be returned to a parent’s
custody when the parent has failed to progress past fully-supervised visits to semi-
supervised or unsupervised visits); In re D.M., No. 18-0086, 2018 WL 1433104, at
*2 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2018) (collecting cases finding a child cannot be
returned to a parent when the parent does not have stable housing or
employment). As the children could not be safely returned to the mother’s custody,
grounds for termination under section 232.116(1)(f) were established.
The mother also asserts that termination is not in the children’s best
interests. Of course, even after we have determined that there are statutory
grounds for termination, we must still decide whether termination is in the children’s
best interests. A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 776. Making that decision requires us to “give
5
primary consideration to the child[ren]’s safety, to the best placement for furthering
the long-term nurturing and growth of the child[ren], and to the physical, mental,
and emotional condition and needs of the child[ren].” Id. (quoting Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2)).
Many of the facts that drive the conclusion that the children cannot be
returned to the mother’s custody also lead us to conclude that termination is in the
children’s best interests. See In re A.M., No. 20-1684, 2021 WL 3074497, at *3
(Iowa Ct. App. July 21, 2021) (using many of the same facts that support a ground
for termination to conclude termination is in the children’s best interests). The
mother relies heavily on her bond with the children in arguing that termination is
not in the children’s best interests. Given the ages of the children, we don’t
question that there is a significant bond between the mother and the children, and
the ages of the children give us pause in deciding whether termination is in the
children’s best interests. But, after that pause, we conclude that termination is in
the children’s best interests.
A bond itself is not sufficient to avoid the need for termination. In re
A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 169 (Iowa 2021). The mother has been receiving services
for over a year in the most recent CINA proceedings, and she had services in prior
CINA proceedings. Despite all those services, she has not gained her footing with
regard to employment, housing, or sobriety. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 474–
75 (Iowa 2018) (considering the fact that a parent had over a year of services
without demonstrating an ability to resume custody of the child in determining
termination was in the child’s best interests). By the mother’s own admission, she
is unable to maintain sobriety for more than a few months before the stresses of
6
life cause her to “snap” and resume using illegal drugs. These children need and
deserve better parenting than that. Parenting “must be constant, responsible, and
reliable.” In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 1990). The mother has not
demonstrated an ability to be those things. As a result, we agree with the juvenile
court that termination is in the children’s best interests.
AFFIRMED.