In the Interest of N.P., Minor Child, D.S., Mother ( 2014 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-0591
Filed September 17, 2014
IN THE INTEREST OF N.P.,
Minor Child,
D.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, Craig M. Dreismeier,
District Associate Judge.
The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son, N.P.
AFFIRMED.
Mandy L. Whiddon, Council Bluffs, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Janet L. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney
General, Eric Hansen, County Attorney, and Patricia McSorley, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee State.
Kathrine Murphy, Glenwood, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Bower, JJ.
2
VOGEL, J.
The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son, N.P.
She asserts the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence her rights
should be terminated under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (g) (2013), and
termination is not in N.P.’s best interest due to the parent-child bond. Because
we conclude the juvenile court properly terminated the mother’s parental rights
under paragraph (g), and termination is in the child’s best interest despite the
bond between him and the mother, we affirm.1
N.P., born November 2008, first came to the attention of the Department
of Human Services (DHS) on January 10, 2012, due to the mother driving while
intoxicated with N.P. in the car. Because it was determined that N.P. and the
mother were living out of the car, N.P. was removed from the mother’s care and
placed with a foster family.2 He was adjudicated a child in need of assistance
(CINA) on June 7, 2012. He was returned twice to the mother’s care during the
pendency of the proceedings, once from May 30, 2012, until August 1, 2012, and
again from April 18, 2013, to May 24, 2013. At the time of the termination
hearing, N.P. had been out of the mother’s care for twenty-two of the previous
twenty-five months.
While removed from her care, the mother had trouble attending scheduled
visits with N.P. Out of 210 visits provided to her, she attended 180. She stated
transportation was an issue as she no longer had a car, and initially she refused
to use public transportation. She eventually began to ride the bus, and even
1
The father’s rights were also terminated. He does not appeal.
2
Each time N.P. was removed from the mother’s care, he was placed with the same
foster family, where he resided at the time of the termination hearing.
3
though vouchers were provided for her and other transportation services offered,
she still had trouble consistently attending visits. However, at the visits, it was
clear to the DHS worker the mother and N.P. shared a bond. For the most part
the mother interacted well with N.P., but this positive interaction was dependent
upon her mood. When she was upset or agitated, she would focus on the
perceived conspiracies against her or her other various problems, rather than
focusing on N.P., who would then hide from the mother. Phone calls were also
scheduled while N.P. was at the foster home, but again, the mother often did not
take advantage of these opportunities and attempt to call.
The mother has several mental health issues. According to the decision
approving her social security disability benefits, she suffers from major
depressive disorder; bipolar affective disorder; mood disorder; idiopathic
hypersomnia; chronic fatigue syndrome; anxiety not otherwise specified; panic
disorder; posttraumatic stress disorder; psychotic disorder; schizophrenia;
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; and a personality disorder with antisocial,
borderline, histrionic, dependent, and schizoid features. At the termination
hearing she testified that many of these diagnoses are not accurate, and that she
only suffers from depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and chronic
fatigue, as had been diagnosed by her psychiatrist at Mercy Hospital. However,
she was reluctant to sign releases regarding her mental health situation, either
signing limited releases or quickly revoking them. This is in part due to the fact
she believes there is a conspiracy, with DHS workers, the courts, and other
4
people in authority positions aligned against her.3 Additionally, she does not
consistently take her medications, ostensibly due to the fact she cannot afford
them.4
The mother underwent a substance abuse and mental health evaluation at
Heartland Family Services, and while she completed the substance abuse
treatment,5 she failed to complete the mental health component. She was
ordered to attend Dialectical Behavior Therapy, but did not complete it as she
either failed to appear or arrived one and one-half hours late. Her attendance at
therapy has also been sporadic. She testified at the termination hearing that she
had not seen a therapist from May 2013 until January 2014.
In May 2013, Heartland Family Services reported that:
[The mother] is making more frequent statements of elopement with
her son . . . . Additionally, [the mother] is demonstrating increasing
disorganized and irrational thinking, due to increased stress, that
lead us to have concern for her ability to most effectively care for
herself. As stated, because we do not work with [N.P.] together
with [the mother], we cannot speak to her ability to parent or care
for [N.P.]. However, we wanted to emphasize our concern for [the
mother’s] ability to most effectively care for herself.
Shortly thereafter, on May 23, 2013, the mother informed N.P.’s daycare
worker that she was not sure where they would be sleeping that night.
3
For example, the mother researches various people, such as the foster family, and
hypothesizes that, because the foster father and the DHS worker’s husband share the
same first name, they are conspiring against her. She also believes people are tapping
her phone, that the foster mother is not real, and that the foster father is a federal agent.
At one point she informed DHS workers that there was a gentleman who was making a
documentary regarding corruption in the child welfare industry, focusing on judges, CPS,
DHS, and visitation workers. She stated the documentary would name everyone
involved in her case, and that “If I don’t get my kid back by Friday, shit is going to hit the
fan. That’s all I know.”
4
The mother has been prescribed Ritalin, Buspirone, Prozac, Xanax, Trazodone, and
Imipramine.
5
The DHS worker testified the mother was compliant with drug screens and never tested
positive for illegal substances.
5
Consequently, the DHS worker obtained an ex parte removal order, and informed
the mother N.P. would be removed from her care and a hearing held the
following week. The mother hung up the phone, and the DHS worker then
received a call from N.P.’s daycare stating the mother had absconded with N.P.,
using him as a shield and a battering ram to remove him from the daycare. The
two were apprehended in Omaha, Nebraska on May 26.
The mother’s housing situation has been a significant issue throughout the
proceedings. She was homeless several times in the past two years, only
obtaining housing for five months from December 2012 to May 2013, and then
again shortly before the termination hearing. Her Southern Iowa Regional
Housing Authority (SIRHA) voucher expired due to lack of use, primarily because
she insisted on looking at large houses that would accommodate all of the
children to whom her rights had been terminated. Moreover, she has failed to
obtain any type of employment, despite a job offer. She was, however, awarded
Social Security Disability benefits shortly before the termination hearing, and
although she was unsure of the amount of assistance, she testified she believed
it would be between $600 and $900 each month.
Due to the mother’s inability to show she could care for N.P., the State
petitioned to terminate her parental rights on December 17, 2013. A contested
hearing was held on February 11 and 12, 2014, in which the mother and several
DHS workers testified. On March 25, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s
parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (g). The mother
appeals.
6
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63,
64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). The grounds for termination must be proved by clear
and convincing evidence. Id. Our primary concern is the child’s best interest. Id.When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory
ground, we only need find grounds to terminate under one of the sections cited
by the juvenile court to affirm. Id. To terminate parental rights under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(g), the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence the
child has been adjudicated CINA, the parent’s rights to another child were
terminated, the parent does not respond to services, and it is clear that an
additional period of time would not correct the situation.6
The mother does not dispute she has had her rights terminated to five
other children, see In re Courtney S., No. 07-1295, 2008 WL 2469885 (Neb. Ct.
App. June 17, 2008) (affirming juvenile court’s termination of parental rights), and
that N.P. was adjudicated CINA. She does, however, contest the finding that she
did not respond to services, asserting she complied with the mental health
requirements and she remained drug-free. She therefore contends N.P. can be
returned to her care. However, it is clear from the history of the case and the
mother’s involvement with both the Iowa and Nebraska Departments of Human
Services that she has failed to adequately take advantage of the many services
offered to her. She has not demonstrated she can maintain housing, maintain a
6
To terminate under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f), the State must prove by clear and
convincing evidence the child is four years of age or older, has been adjudicated CINA,
removed from home for twelve of last the last eighteen months, and cannot be returned
home.
7
reliable source of income that will support her and N.P., or consistently address
her serious mental health needs.7
The juvenile court accurately summed up the mother’s situation when it
stated:
During this twenty-five month period, [the mother] has not had a
permanent residence, usually living with friends, in a shelter, or in a
vehicle. She maintained her own home on two separate occasions,
which includes her current residence. The other occasion was for a
period of five to six months. Although it is not possible to determine
if she will maintain this current residence, if history is a predictor of
the future, she will not. The termination of her five children in
Nebraska was in part based upon an inability to maintain housing
and because of her inability to address her mental health issues.
During this case, she has had resources available to her yet she
has failed to take advantage of the same. She did obtain disability,
however, given the anticipated amount, she is going to continue to
struggle financially to support herself let alone both she and [N.P.].
It is clear she suffers from a multitude of mental health issues which
she has allowed to go untreated and un-medicated for periods of
time throughout this matter. [The mother] disputes suffering from
several of the diagnoses relied upon by the social security
administration in awarding her disability benefits. It is clear she is
not even aware of the extent of her mental health issues . . . .
[N.P.] needs stability in his life. [The mother] is not capable of
providing this stability at this time or anytime in the near future.
She has not been able to adequately care for herself throughout
this case.
The record fully supports this assessment.
Furthermore, termination is in N.P.’s best interest. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2). Iowa DHS has been involved with the mother and N.P. for two
years, and she received services through the Nebraska DHS system from 2004
to 2007. However, despite the lengthy receipt of services, the mother has failed
7
As to her housing, the mother states in her appellate brief dated April 21, 2014, that
she “is still residing there today,” and “has managed to maintain [the housing] to this
day.” These assertions are outside the closed record, and therefore we cannot consider
them on appeal. See State v. Weiland, 202 N.W.2d 67, 69 (Iowa 1972) (noting appellate
courts cannot consider facts that are outside of the record).
8
to maintain suitable housing, seek a steady income or employment, consistently
address her mental health needs, and comply with other court-ordered services,
such as therapy. In determining the future actions of the parent, her past
conduct is instructive. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006). It is evident
from the mother’s conduct that she is unable to provide an acceptable level of
care to N.P, and, regardless of how many services she receives, will be unable to
do so in the foreseeable future.
It is also clear that more time would not correct the situation, and that it is
important for N.P.’s well-being and security that the mother’s rights be
terminated. “We have repeatedly followed the principle that the statutory time
line must be followed and children should not be forced to wait for their parent to
grow up.” In re N.F., 579, N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998); see also Iowa
Code § 232.116(2). While it is clear the mother and N.P. share a bond, this
consideration does not prevent termination. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c).
The mother has failed to show much—if any—progress in being able to safely
parent N.P. in all the years in which she has been receiving services. It is
fortunate that N.P. has found stability in his pre-adoptive home. Consequently,
we conclude the juvenile court properly terminated the mother’s parental rights,
and we affirm the court’s termination order.
AFFIRMED.