In the Interest of K.J., Minor Child ( 2021 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-1144
Filed October 20, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF K.J.,
Minor Child,
B.J., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Kevin Parker,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from a district court order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Penny B. Reimer of The Neighborhood Law Group, P.C., West Des Moines,
for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Will Sales, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.
2
SCHUMACHER, Judge.
A mother appeals a district court order terminating her parental rights.
Termination of the mother’s parental rights is supported by clear and convincing
evidence, the mother should not be granted an extension of time, termination is in
the child’s best interests, and none of the exceptions to termination should be
applied. We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
B.J., mother, and F.C., father,1 are the parents of K.J., born in 2020. The
mother was a minor at the time of the child’s birth. The mother has a history of
mental-health problems, including post-traumatic stress disorder, borderline
intellectual functioning, and major depression. The mother herself was a child in
need of assistance (CINA). In the three years prior to K.J.’s birth, the mother was
moved to eighteen different placements based on her behavioral concerns. K.J.
was removed from the mother’s care on September 11, 2020, because of the
mother’s suicidal ideation, and K.J. was placed with the maternal grandmother.
On October 29, the child was adjudicated to be in need of assistance,
pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(n) (2020). The mother attended mental-
health therapy but was not taking prescribed medication for her mental health. In
February 2021, the mother was the victim of domestic violence in an incident
involving her paramour. The paramour was also facing charges of possession of
a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia.
1 The father consented to termination of his parental rights and has not appealed.
3
The State filed a petition seeking termination of the mother’s parental rights
on March 22. On March 26, the child was placed in foster care after the maternal
grandmother informed the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) that she
could not be a long-term care option for the child. The mother exercised visitation
two times with the child after he was placed in foster care—once in person and
once by video.
At the termination hearing, the DHS social worker testified that if the mother
“is in a relationship that isn’t safe for her, then it obviously wouldn’t be safe for [the
child] as well.” The social worker gave the opinion that the mother could not safely
parent the child in her home. The social worker additionally stated the mother had
not made recent progress to show that the need for removal would no longer exist
in six months.
The district court entered an order on August 6 terminating the mother’s
parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (h) (2021). The court
found termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests.
The court declined to apply any of the exceptions to termination found in section
232.116(3). The mother timely appeals the termination of her parental rights.
II. Standard of Review
Our review of termination proceedings is de novo. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d
764, 773 (Iowa 2012). The State must prove its allegations for termination by clear
and convincing evidence. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). “‘Clear
and convincing evidence’ means there are no serious or substantial doubts as to
the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.” Id. Our primary
4
concern is the best interests of the child. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa
2014).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The mother claims the State did not present clear and convincing evidence
to show her parental rights should be terminated. “We will uphold an order
terminating parental rights where there is clear and convincing evidence of the
statutory grounds for termination.” In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425, 434 (Iowa Ct. App.
2015). “When the juvenile court orders termination of parental rights on more than
one statutory ground, we need only find grounds to terminate on one of the
sections to affirm.” Id. at 435.
We will focus on the termination of the mother’s parental rights under
section 232.116(1)(h). A parent’s rights may be terminated under section
232.116(1)(h) if the court finds all of the following:
(1) The child is three years of age or younger.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a [CINA] pursuant to
section 232.96.
(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.
In applying section 232.116(1)(h), we consider whether the child could be safely
returned to the parent’s care at the time of the termination hearing. See In re D.W.,
791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010).
The mother disputes only the last element. She claims there is clear and
convincing evidence to show the child could be safely returned to her care. She
5
asserts that she is getting help for her mental health. The mother states the child
could live with her “while she continues to address her mental health through
appropriate services.”
The mother did not sign releases to permit DHS to talk to her therapist so it
was unknown if the mother was making progress in therapy. The exhibit provided
by the mother showed she was not consistently attending therapy. Also, there was
no information about medication management for her mental health. There were
also concerns about the mother’s relationship with her paramour due to the recent
incident of domestic violence and his arrest for possession of a controlled
substance and drug paraphernalia. There is a lack of evidence in the record that
the mother has addressed the concerns of domestic violence. She testified, even
after police involvement in February 2021, she did not believe her paramour would
hurt her. We conclude there is clear and convincing evidence to show the child
could not be safely returned to the mother’s care and the statutory elements of
section 232.116(1)(h) were met.
IV. Extension of Time
The mother contends the district court should have granted her additional
time to work on reunification with the child. She asserts that she is in therapy for
her mental health. She claims the child could be returned to her care within six
months.
The court may decide to not terminate parental rights if it finds there is clear
and convincing evidence that CINA proceedings should continue and enters an
order to extend the time for reunification in accordance with section 232.104(2)(b).
Iowa Code § 232.117(5). The court may continue the proceedings for an additional
6
six months if the court finds “the need for removal . . . will no longer exist at the
end of the additional six-month period.” Id. § 232.104(2)(b).
The evidence does not show it is likely the child could be returned to the
mother’s care by the end of an additional period of six months. See id. The mother
had very limited contact with the child after the child was placed in foster care.
There is not sufficient evidence to show the mother is making progress in therapy
or taking prescribed medication for her mental health. The record is lacking any
convincing evidence that the mother has addressed the domestic violence
concerns. A DHS social worker testified at the termination hearing the mother had
not made recent progress to show that the need for removal would no longer exist
in six months. We conclude the district court properly denied the mother’s request
for an extension of time.
V. Best Interests
The mother claims termination of her parental rights is not in the child’s best
interests. She states that she had consistent contact with the child while he was
in the care of the maternal grandmother.
In considering the best interests of children, we give “primary consideration
to the child’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing
and growth of the child, and to the physical, mental, and emotional needs of the
child under section 232.116(2).” 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.”
Id.7
We find termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best
interests. The mother has not shown she understands how her actions have
consequences for the child. The mother’s association with the paramour involved
domestic violence, plus there was evidence of the paramour’s use of controlled
substances. In addition, the mother did not take advantage of the visitation
opportunities presented to her. We conclude the child’s best interests require
termination of the mother’s parental rights.
VI. Exceptions to Termination
The mother asserts the district court should have applied an exception to
termination. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3). She states the court should have found
that “termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness
of the parent-child relationship.” See id. § 232.116(3)(c). The mother claims she
developed a close bond with the child while the child was in the care of the
maternal grandmother.
“The factors weighing against termination in section 232.116(3) are
permissive, not mandatory.” In re A.R., 932 N.W.2d 588, 591 (Iowa Ct. App. 2019)
(quoting In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458, 474–75 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011)). “The court
may exercise its discretion in deciding whether to apply the factors in section
232.116(3) to save the parent-child relationship based on the unique
circumstances of each case and the best interests of the children.” Id. (citing In re
A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 113 (Iowa 2014)).
We determine that it would not be in the child’s best interests to apply an
exception to termination under section 232.116(3). Although the mother would
drop in when the child was placed in the maternal grandmother’s care to ask for
8
money or pick something up, the mother’s involvement with the child on these
occasions was limited. As noted, the mother only had visitation with the child twice
after the child was placed in foster care in March 2021. One visit was in person
and one was by video. The mother’s limited interaction with the child when placed
with the grandmother and when the child was no longer in the maternal
grandmother’s care precludes a finding that the mother has a close bond with the
child such that termination would be detrimental to the child. This record does not
support a finding that termination would be detrimental to the child due to the
closeness of the parent-child relationship. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3). We affirm
the termination of the mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.