In the Interest of M.M., Minor Child, K.F., Mother ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-2131
Filed February 25, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF M.M.,
Minor Child,
K.F., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William Price, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son, born in
2012. AFFIRMED.
Emily K. Tisinger of Springer & Laughlin Law Offices, P.C., Des Moines,
for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Kevin Brownell,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Stephie Tran, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, P.J.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son, born in
2012. She (1) challenges the grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court
and (2) contends termination was not in the child’s best interests.
I. The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to two
statutory provisions. We find it necessary to address only one: whether the child
could be returned to the mother’s custody. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)
(2013); In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999) (we may affirm if we
find clear and convincing evidence to support any of the grounds cited by the
juvenile court).
Our de novo review of the record reveals the following facts. The
Department of Human Services became involved with the family in January 2013
based on the mother’s mental health and the child’s exposure to domestic
violence. The child was adjudicated in need of assistance but remained with his
mother.
Two months after the adjudication, the juvenile court removed the child
from the mother’s care and placed him with the mother’s aunt and uncle. The
transfer was based on the mother’s failure to cooperate with mental health
services, her defiance of an admonishment to keep the child away from the
child’s father, her decision to take the child to her new boyfriend’s house or leave
the child with relatives while she spent nights with the boyfriend, and a claimed
assault on her grandmother. The mother stipulated to the need for removal. The
child remained with the aunt and uncle through the balance of the proceedings.
3
The mother visited the child regularly and, according to a department
social worker, “demonstrat[ed] positive parenting skills.” Several months after
the child’s removal, she also began attending individual therapy sessions.
Despite this progress, the department reported she was “distracted from
benefitting from services tailored to reunify her with” the child.
The mother’s failure to commit to reunification services other than visits
continued into the fall of 2013. The department changed course and found an
inability “to provide minimally adequate parenting.” The State petitioned to
terminate her parental rights.
In early 2014, the State dismissed the petition as to the mother. Two
months later, the mother tested positive for marijuana in her system, a new factor
raising concerns about the mother’s reunification prospects.1 The mother was
also arrested for hitting her grandfather—conduct she attempted to explain rather
than deny. She was charged with domestic assault, a charge that was pending
at the time of the termination hearing.
The department concluded the mother was not “able to make the
necessary behavior changes that were anticipated when the court ordered that
she be allowed additional time to reunify.” The State again petitioned to
terminate her parental rights.
At the termination hearing, the State initially elicited testimony from an
expert with the federally-recognized Indian tribe in which the child was enrolled.
The expert testified he would have the same safety and welfare concerns as the
1
The department did not require regular drug testing during the first year of the
proceedings because drug use did not appear to be a concern.
4
department “if this were a hearing within our own tribal system.” He further
testified tribal services were not available in Iowa but agreed the tribe could
provide no “traditional and customary support and resolution actions or services”
other than those provided by the department.
A department social worker testified the mother was participating in
services, including therapy, visits, and a young woman’s group. He nonetheless
recommended termination of her parental rights based on her sometimes
strained relationship with the child’s caregivers.
We are not persuaded the mother’s relationship with her aunt and uncle
was grounds to terminate the mother’s parental rights; both testified in support of
the mother and stated they were fully behind her efforts to reunify with the child.
However, termination was warranted based on the risk of harm to the child if
returned to the mother’s full-time care. The mother had yet to gain sufficient
insight into her own behaviors to be able to control her aggression. She also
showed a level of immaturity in her conduct that jeopardized the safety of her
child. For these reasons, we conclude the child could not be returned to her
custody. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4).
II. Termination must also be in the child’s best interests. Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2); In re M.S., 519 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 1994). As noted, the
mother shared a strong bond with the child. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c).
The child was also placed with supportive relatives. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(3)(a). These exceptions to termination might have carried the day but
for the setbacks described above. Those setbacks after the statutory deadlines
for pursuit of termination weakened the mother’s case for a continued legal
5
relationship with the child. As the juvenile court stated, the child was two years
old and had “been in limbo with respect to whether he [could be] reunified with
his mother for over half of his life” and “[e]fforts to get [the mother] in a position to
have this child in [her] custody have been exhausted.” Under these
circumstances, we agree termination of the mother’s parental rights to this child
was in the child’s best interests. See In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Iowa
1997) (“A child should not be forced to endlessly await the maturity of a natural
parent.”).
AFFIRMED.