In the Interest of R.K. and F.K., Minor Children ( 2022 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-0547
Filed June 15, 2022
IN THE INTEREST OF R.K. and F.K.,
Minor Children,
A.K., 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 to her two children.
AFFIRMED.
Joseph G. Martin, Cedar Falls, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Tammy L. Banning of the Office of State Public Defender, Waterloo,
attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.
2
AHLERS, Judge.
This family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services
(DHS) because of reports that the older of the two children—who was four years
old at that time—frequently left the home without the parents’ knowledge or
supervision. The investigation that followed revealed a home that was unsafe and
uninhabitable for the children. The safety concerns included animal and human
feces on the floors; prescription medications accessible to the children; and rotting
food and trash in the home resulting in the presence of maggots and flies. It was
also discovered that the mother was allowing a registered sex offender to live in
the home. The children were removed and placed with a foster family. Each child
was adjudicated to be a child in need of assistance (CINA).
Throughout DHS involvement, the mother was offered extensive services
to address her mental-health and parenting needs. Despite those services,
significant concerns remained regarding the mother’s ability to maintain a safe
home for the children and to properly parent. The mother physically abused the
older child during one of her visits, even though the visit was semi-supervised.
Although the children’s behavior and development improved dramatically after
being placed in foster care, they suffered significant behavioral regressions
following visits with the mother.
With little progress being made toward safe and effective parenting, the
State filed petitions seeking to terminate the mother’s parental rights. Following a
hearing, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s rights to the older child under
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2021) and to the younger child under
section 232.116(1)(h). The father of the older child consented to the termination
3
of his rights. The rights of all putative fathers of the younger child were terminated.
Only the mother appeals.
We review termination proceedings de novo.1 “We give weight to the factual
findings but are not bound by them. The paramount concern in a termination
proceeding is the child[ren]’s best interests.”2
As noted, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to the
older child under section 232.116(1)(f)—requiring proof that the child is four years
of age or older, was previously adjudicated CINA, has been removed from the
custody of the parent for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, and cannot
be returned safely to the parent at the present time. The mother’s rights to the
younger child were terminated under section 232.116(1)(h)—requiring proof that
the child is three years of age or younger, was previously adjudicated CINA, has
been removed from the custody of the parent for at least six of the last twelve
months, and cannot be returned safely to the parent at the present time. On
appeal, the mother seems to challenge only the fourth element of each statutory
provision—that the children could not be returned to her care at the time of the
termination hearing.3 The State, however, contests error preservation on this
point. On our review of the record, we agree with the State that error has not been
preserved on this issue. While the mother contested termination, she did so by
requesting an additional six months to allow for reunification. She did not contend
that the State failed to meet the statutory requirements for termination. “It is a
1 In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022).
2 In re L.B., 970 N.W.2d at 313 (internal citation omitted).
3 See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f)(4), (h)(4); In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa
2010) (stating “at the present time” means at the time of the termination hearing).
4
fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised
and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.”4 Because
the mother did not make arguments to the juvenile court that the State failed to
meet its burden in proving the statutory grounds for termination, we find the issue
is not preserved for our review. Although not preserved for our review, we have
conducted a de novo review of the record nevertheless, and we find clear and
convincing evidence that the children could not be returned to the mother’s custody
at the time of the termination hearing. The statutory grounds for termination have
been met.
The remaining issue is the mother’s claim that she should have been
granted an additional six months to work toward reunification. If the juvenile court
decides not to terminate parental rights, it can choose any of the permanency
options set forth in Iowa Code section 232.104.5 One of those options is to give
the parent an additional six months to work toward reunification.6 In order to select
this option, however, the court must “enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or
expected behavioral changes which comprise the basis for the determination that
the need for removal of the child from the child’s home will no longer exist at the
end of the additional six-month period.”7 With the request for additional time, not
only must the mother show that the conditions will no longer exist after an
4 Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002).
5 Iowa Code § 232.117(5).
6 Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b).
7 Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b).
5
additional six months, but we must also consider whether an additional delay is in
the children’s best interests.8
We agree with the juvenile court that there are no articulable facts that point
to the children being able to be returned to the mother’s custody after an additional
six months. The children were removed from the mother’s custody for nearly
seventeen months at the time of the termination hearing (from September 2020 to
February 2022) with no trial periods at home. At the time of termination, the mother
was only exercising fully supervised visitation. Despite the services offered, the
mother was unable to consistently maintain a sufficiently safe home for the children
or to adequately supervise them. The mother, though engaging in the required
services, did not make significant progress in the areas of concern such that we
can say the concerns would no longer be present after an additional six months.
Further, it is clear that additional delay is not in the children’s best interests. The
children have thrived in their foster home and are strongly bonded to the foster
family. In looking to the children’s “long-term nurturing and growth . . . and to [their]
physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs,” denial of additional delay is
in the children’s best interests.9 We cannot delay permanency for a child in the
hope that someday a parent will be able to provide a safe and stable home.10
Accordingly, the mother’s request for an additional six months to work toward
reunification was properly denied.
AFFIRMED.
8 In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 323 (Iowa 2021).
9 See In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157, 171 (Iowa 2020) (quoting Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2)).
10 In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 474 (Iowa 2018).