In the Interest of L.S. and J.S., Minor Children ( 2022 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-0953
Filed October 5, 2022
IN THE INTEREST OF L.S. and J.S.,
Minor Children,
A.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Joseph G. Martin, Cedar Falls, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Rachel Antonuccio of the Waterloo Juvenile Public Defender’s Office,
Waterloo, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Tabor, JJ.
2
BOWER, Chief Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.1 On our de novo
review, we affirm. See In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Iowa 2021).
A.S. is the mother of L.S., born in 2017, and J.S., born in 2021. During the
summer of 2020, while the mother was in jail for stabbing her boyfriend J.T., L.S.
and an older sibling were left in J.T.’s care. Soon after the mother’s release from
jail in July, a report was made to the department of human services (DHHS)2 that
J.T. had touched the older child inappropriately; the mother and J.T. denied any
inappropriate physical contact, and the mother tried to convince the older child the
touching did not happen. A written safety plan prohibiting J.T. from having
unsupervised contact with the children was entered. In August, J.T. was reported
to have abused illegal drugs while caring for L.S. and the older sibling.
In September, both L.S. and the older sibling tested positive for illegal drugs
and were removed from the home and placed in family foster care.3 Also in
September, the mother was given a deferred judgment on three charges from the
June 2020 stabbing incident and was placed on probation. Over the course of
2020, DHS issued founded child abuse reports against the mother for physical
abuse, presence of illegal drugs, and denial of critical care.
1 The supreme court dismissed the appeal by J.S.’s father, J.T., as untimely. There
is no paternal appeal concerning L.S.
2 In 2022, the legislature merged the department of human services with the
department of public health into the Iowa Department of Health and Human
Services, with the transition starting July 1, 2022. See 2022 Iowa Acts ch. 1131
§ 51.
3 The older child was initially in foster care with L.S. but was later placed with a
paternal relative; the older child is not a subject of this appeal.
3
When J.S. was born in May 2021, the hospital refused to discharge the child
due to the mother’s comments about leaving the state and placing the child with
J.T. in Wisconsin. The child was removed by court order and placed with L.S.’s
foster family.
In early July, J.T. was arrested for domestic abuse assault on the mother,
and a no-contact order was issued. Later in July, and again in August, J.T. was
charged with violating the no-contact order.
The mother made progress and participated in services, including taking
anger-management classes, completing a SafeCare parenting program, and
attending therapy. But, as a result of a December probation violation, the mother
was placed in a residential correctional facility in February of 2022. After violating
the rules at the residential facility, she was moved to jail in April where she
remained until after the April 25 termination hearing. The mother swings between
cooperating with services and displaying hostility and resistance to DHS and other
providers.
On May 18, the juvenile court found grounds for termination of the mother’s
parental rights had been established under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (f),
and (h) (2022).
The mother appeals, asserting termination of her parental rights is not in the
best interests of the children. She argues the court’s main concerns have been
resolved. She claims the juvenile court should have deferred permanency
because she expected to be placed at a women’s correctional facility where she
could soon reengage in services and be available for the children to be placed with
her.
4
Normally, we follow a three-step analysis when reviewing the termination of
parental rights. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018). We determine if a
ground for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1) has been established,
if the best-interests analysis of section 232.116(2) supports termination; and if an
exception to termination in section 232.116(3) applies. Id. at 472–73. If any step
is not contested, we need not address it. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa
2010). Here, the mother does not contest either the first or third steps.
“[T]he court is required to use the best-interest framework established in
section 232.116(2) when it decides what is in the best interest of the child.” Id. at
37. Therefore, 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 condition and needs of the child.” Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2). This includes considering the child’s foster placement and relevant
testimony or written statement from a foster parent. See id. § 232.116(2)(b).
The juvenile court found:
[The mother] has not acknowledged how her behaviors,
history of domestic violence[,] and putting her own needs ahead of
her children has affected her life or placed the children at risk. [She]
has demonstrated no meaningful effort at discontinuing her
relationship with [J.T.] or follow through services which may assist
her in providing a safe and stable home for the children, despite
nearly two years of services. [The mother] has failed to follow
through with mental health counseling which could assist her in
addressing the issues which led to the children’s removal from her
care or prevent her from perpetrating further abuse or neglect.
L.S. has expressed fear of the mother to various service providers, and the
child’s behavior regressed after visits. J.S. has never been in the mother’s
custody, and they have only a limited bond. The case started in the summer of
5
2020 with domestic violence by the mother and an unsafe caretaker for the
children. Despite participating in anger-management classes, the mother
continued to have outbursts, which set her back in her visitation and probation,
and has played a part in her return to jail at the time of the termination hearing.
“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.” P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 41. “Time is a critical element,” and once the
statutory period for reunification has passed, “termination proceedings must be
viewed with a sense of urgency.” In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 2000). It
is not in these children’s best interests to wait longer for the mother to establish a
safe, stable, and nurturing home.
Termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of the
children, and additional time is not warranted.
AFFIRMED.