In the Interest of J.C., Minor Child ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1679
Filed December 18, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF J.C.,
Minor Child,
K.B., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of parental rights to her child.
AFFIRMED.
Kristin L. Denniger, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Julie F. Trachta of Linn County Advocate, Inc., Cedar Rapids, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.
2
DOYLE, Presiding Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of parental rights to her child.1 She
argues the State did not prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing
evidence. She also argues termination is not in the child’s best interest. We review
these claims de novo. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018).
The Iowa Department of Human Services became involved with this family
in October 2016 when J.C. was born drug-affected. This is not the first time
children have been removed from the mother’s care. The mother has three older
sons who each live with their respective fathers. The mother has a long history of
substance use, including alcohol, methamphetamine, and prescription drugs. She
also struggles with mental-health issues.
The juvenile court removed the child from the mother’s care upon his
discharge from the hospital. Efforts made to preserve the family were ultimately
unsuccessful. The mother went through many forms of treatment for her
substance use, both before and after the child’s birth. Although she made
progress, the mother continued to relapse, using methamphetamine, alcohol, and
Xanax.
The mother argues the State failed to prove the grounds for termination
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2019). To terminate parental rights under
this section, the State must prove the following by clear and convincing evidence:
(1) The child is three years of age or younger.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of
assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
1The father died during the pendency of the child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA)
case.
3
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of
the child’s parents for at least six months of the last twelve months,
or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home
has been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child
cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided
in section 232.102 at the present time.
Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h). The mother does not challenge the first three
requirements but argues the State failed to show the child could not be returned to
her custody at the time of the termination hearing. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)(h)(4); In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010) (interpreting the
term “at the present time” to mean “at the time of the termination hearing”). “[A]
child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parent under section 232.102
if by doing so the child would be exposed to any harm amounting to a new [CINA]
adjudication.” In re M.S., 889 N.W.2d 675, 680 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (first alteration
in original) (citation omitted).
Clear and convincing evidence shows that placing the child in the mother’s
custody at the time of the termination hearing would expose the child to harm
amounting to a new CINA adjudication. The issues leading to the original CINA
adjudication continued throughout the proceedings. Although the mother
abstained from drug use for periods, she kept using alcohol. She began abusing
prescription drugs in January 2019. After treatment for her prescription drug use,
the mother again used alcohol. She then tested positive for methamphetamine.
Her efforts to explain her positive results are not credible, and she cannot address
her substance abuse while continuing to deny it. Even though the mother stated
she was willing to do the work necessary to address her issues by going through
4
treatment, she was in no better position to care for J.C. at the time of the
termination hearing than she was at the CINA adjudication.
The mother also challenges the court’s finding termination is in the child’s
best interest. The primary considerations are “the child’s safety,” “the best
placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of the child,” and “the
physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child.” In re P.L., 778
N.W.2d 33, 37 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Iowa Code § 232.116(2)). The “defining
elements in a child’s best interest” are the child’s safety and “need for a permanent
home.” In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011) (citation omitted).
Upon a de novo review of the evidence, we agree termination is in the child’s
best interests. J.C.’s medical needs require special attention, and failure to attend
to these needs continually places the child’s health in danger. The mother cannot
provide the safety and permanency J.C. needs because of her ongoing substance
use, which prevents her from providing J.C. the level of care he needs. So we
affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.