In the Interest of S v. D v. and D.B., Minor Children, S v. Mother ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1105
Filed October 28, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF S.V., D.V., and
D.B.,
Minor Children,
S.V., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J.
Straka, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three children.
AFFIRMED.
Taryn Purcell of Blair & Fitzsimmons, Dubuque, for mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathryn S. Miller-Todd and Janet
Hoffman, Assistant Attorneys General, Ralph Potter, County Attorney, and
Joshua Vander Ploeg, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Matthew Boleyn of Reynolds & Kenline, Dubuque, for father D.B.
Dustin Baker of Baker Law, Dubuque, for father C.P.
Colista Anglese of Hammer, Simon & Jensen, East Dubuque, attorney
and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Danilson, C.J, and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.
2
TABOR, Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to
three children: seven-year-old D.V., three-year-old S.V., and one-year-old D.B.1
She does not contest the statutory grounds for termination. Instead she asserts
the juvenile court should have refused to terminate under Iowa Code section
232.116(3)(c) (2013) based on her bond with the children. Alternatively, she
contends the court should have given her an additional six months to secure a
living arrangement suitable for the family.
The mother’s strong commitment to her children is obvious from our
review of the record.2 But the mother has not demonstrated her ability to provide
a stable home for them with the necessary consistency over the past three years
of involvement by the Department of Human Services (DHS). We conclude the
continued uncertainty of the children’s future is more detrimental than the
prospect of severing the legal relationship with their mother. We also conclude
that reunification would not be possible even after an additional six months.
The history of the family is relevant to the questions before us. The
mother was raised by her grandmother until she was thirteen years old. The
mother became pregnant with her first child at age sixteen and dropped out of
high school when she was pregnant with her second child. She did not complete
a GED.
1
The juvenile court also terminated the parental rights of each child’s father or putative
father. The fathers’ rights are not an issue in this appeal.
2
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re A.M., 843 N .W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa
2014). When so doing, “[w]e review both the facts and the law, and we adjudicate rights
anew.” In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).
3
The family came to DHS attention in July 2012 when S.V. tested positive
for methamphetamine. The mother acknowledged using drugs and leaving S.V.
and D.V. in the care of an active methamphetamine addict. The mother
participated in voluntary services with the DHS for one year.
The mother’s situation was very precarious for that year. Drug use was a
continuing concern. She moved out of an apartment where she was living with
the children because it had no electricity. The family lived in a tent outside the
home of the children’s grandfather while the mother searched for a new
apartment. The children again tested positive for drugs in July 2013. The DHS
removed the children and adjudicated them as children in need of assistance
(CINA) in September 2013.
The mother left another apartment after failing to pay rent and entered the
Maria House in January 2014. The children were returned to her care while she
lived there. But the mother was forced to leave the Maria House when she did
not follow the rules. D.B. was born in June 2014. The two older children were
removed again in September 2014. D.B. was adjudicated CINA in October 2014
and removed as well.
After this removal, the mother found new motivation to reunite with her
children. She made strides toward addressing her substance abuse issues,
though she did test positive for marijuana in January 2015. She also was
working three part-time jobs and obtained stable housing.
In recognition of the mother’s progress, the DHS granted extended
visitation—six hours a day, four days a week. The DHS report stated: “We
4
wanted to see that [the mother] could maintain her employment and apartment
while still getting the kids to and from school and daycare and meeting all of their
needs.”
Perhaps not surprisingly because of the overwhelming demands on her
time, the mother failed to meet the DHS expectations. She lost one of her jobs
because she was unable to set her work schedule around the long visitations.
The mother did not take the children to day care, because she wanted to
maximize her time with them and because they cried when she left them. As a
result, she lost her remaining jobs and then her apartment in April 2015. The
DHS cut back her visitations to three hours, one day a week.
The State filed its petition to terminate her parental rights on May 6, 2015,
and the court held a hearing on June 3. The mother did not challenge the
grounds for termination. Instead, she asked for additional time under Iowa Code
sections 232.104(2)(b) and 232.117(5). She also claimed her bond with the
children was strong enough that termination would be detrimental to them under
section 232.116(3)(c). On June 12, 2015, the juvenile court terminated the
mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) as to D.V. and
S.V and (h) as to D.B. The mother now appeals, raising the same arguments
she did in the juvenile court. We find termination is appropriate.
A. The Closeness of the Parent-Child Relationship
The mother invokes Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c) as a reason not to
terminate her parental rights. Section 232.116(3)(c) provides, “The court need
not terminate the relationship between the parent and child if the court finds . . .
5
[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that the termination would be detrimental
to the child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.” This
factor is permissive, not mandatory. A.M., 843 N.W.2d at 100.
It is clear from the record that the mother loves her children and enjoys a
strong connection to them, especially the older two children who have spent
more time in her care. But their bond does not outweigh the children’s need for
permanency. The mother has been involved with DHS for more than three
years. While she has made progress with her substance abuse issues and
parenting skills, she continues to struggle with balancing the needs of the
children with maintaining employment and stable housing. Her children have
waited long enough for her to become a responsible parent. See In re L.L., 459
N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 1990).
B. Continued Foster Care Placement
The mother argues “the only setback” that prevented the children from
being returned to her care was her inability to maintain a stable residence. She
contends she can remedy this situation with a six-month extension. “[T]o
continue placement for six months, the statute requires the court to make a
determination the need for removal will no longer exist at the end of the
extension.” In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 92 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005).
At the time of the termination hearing, the mother was staying with the
father of her unborn child because she did not have her own apartment. She
testified that a few days before the hearing she was hired at a local Wendy’s
where she could work on a part-time basis. She testified she was actively
6
looking for an apartment or, alternatively, could move in with her grandmother in
Davenport.3
After considering the record as a whole, we find the mother would not be
able to remedy the need for removal if granted an additional six months. The
mother has had a difficult time maintaining a stable residence. She has a driver’s
license, but no transportation of her own. She started a part-time job at a fast-
food restaurant, but only on the eve of the termination hearing. She also was
also pregnant with her fourth child, which will make it more difficult for her to
continue to work and save for a suitable apartment. Her backup plan of living
with her grandmother was not revealed until the hearing and despite her struggle
to maintain stable housing she had not sought approval for this contingency from
the DHS.
Meanwhile, the children have found a stable environment in their foster
home. The foster family has indicated a willingness to adopt all three children.
The record does not support postponing the children’s chance at permanency for
another six months.
AFFIRMED.
3
The grandmother testified she had plenty of room and the mother’s family was
welcome to stay with her. Earlier in the case, the DHS looked into the grandmother as a
possible placement for the children, but the grandmother was only able to care for the
older two children.