In the Interest of C.R., Minor Child ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 22-0579
    Filed June 29, 2022
    IN THE INTEREST OF C.R.,
    Minor Child,
    A.R., Mother,
    Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt,
    Judge.
    A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
    Andrew C. Abbott of Abbott Law Office, P.C., Waterloo, for appellant
    mother.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
    Attorney General, for appellee State.
    Tammy L. Banning of the Office of State Public Defender, attorney and
    guardian ad litem for minor child.
    Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ.
    2
    BADDING, Judge.
    In February 2020, then twelve-year-old C.R. was living with her maternal
    grandmother because C.R.’s mother was homeless. One day after the mother
    went to the grandmother’s house to shower, the mother asked C.R. to hide a
    makeup box she had left behind from the grandmother. Instead, the child and her
    grandmother looked inside the box and found drug paraphernalia, baggies with
    white powdery residue, and prescription medications. A report was made to the
    Iowa Department of Human Services. The mother then absconded with C.R. for
    several days. In March, based on the above, the State sought and obtained an
    order for temporary removal.       Soon after, the mother tested positive for
    methamphetamine and amphetamines. The mother stipulated to the child being
    adjudicated in need of assistance.1
    The mother completed a substance-abuse evaluation in May, which
    recommended extended outpatient treatment with individual and group
    counseling. This recommendation was suspect because, despite her positive drug
    screen, the mother told the evaluator that she had not used substances in fourteen
    years. The mother also completed a mental-health evaluation in June, but no
    treatment was recommended because the mother stated she “did not wish to
    receive any mental health treatment at this time.”
    Fast forward to March 2021, nearly one year later. By that point, the mother
    had not engaged in any treatment or drug testing, her contact with C.R. was limited
    to supervised text messages and phone calls, and the child was adamant that she
    1 We later affirmed the adjudication and disposition on the mother’s appeal. See
    In re C.R., No. 20-1216, 
    2021 WL 374525
    , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2021).
    3
    did not want to return to her mother’s care. Because of the mother’s lack of
    progress, the department recommended termination of the mother’s parental
    rights. A few days after that recommendation, the mother gave birth to another
    child. The mother and the infant both tested positive for methamphetamine. So
    the infant was also removed from the mother’s care. Before giving birth, the mother
    successfully concealed her pregnancy from the department by refusing to meet
    with providers or participate in video visits with the child.
    The State filed its termination petition in June, and the matter proceeded to
    hearing in September. The mother had still not engaged in treatment or complied
    with drug testing. Nor had there been any in-person contact between the mother
    and the child since she was removed. The child’s therapist reported C.R.’s feelings
    toward the mother as follows: “She has consistently said she does not want to go
    back to her mother’s. She doesn’t trust her, doesn’t feel she takes responsibility
    for any of her previous or current actions, believes she is still using drugs. She
    has consistently wanted to be adopted by her grandparents.”            Following the
    hearing, the court terminated the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section
    232.116(1)(e) and (f) (2021).
    The mother appeals,2 arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the
    grounds for termination, termination is contrary to the child’s best interests, and
    termination would be detrimental to the child. We review each of her claims de
    novo. In re L.B., 
    970 N.W.2d 311
    , 313 (Iowa 2022).
    2   The father’s rights were also terminated. He does not appeal.
    4
    As to the grounds for termination, the mother challenges the State’s
    establishment of the final element of each ground—that she has not maintained
    significant and meaningful contact under section 232.116(1)(e)(3) and the child
    cannot be returned to her care at present under section 232.116(1)(f)(4). While
    we could affirm under either ground, In re D.W., 
    791 N.W.2d 703
    , 707 (Iowa 2010),
    we find the State met its burden of proof for each.
    By the time of the termination trial, the mother had not texted or called the
    child for months, and she had not seen her for more than one year. While the
    mother argues she was “thwarted from regular meaningful contact” by everyone
    involved in the case, it was the mother’s own poor choices and resistance to
    services that led to her failure to maintain significant and meaningful contact with
    C.R. See In re K.M.B., No. 12-0306, 
    2012 WL 1247156
    , at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr.
    11, 2012).   The mother also continues to lead an unstable lifestyle, with no
    verifiable address or employment, and she has shown a clear inability to provide
    even minimally proper care for this child. The mother tried to conceal her drug use
    by not complying with drug testing, but the record shows that her use of
    methamphetamine continues.         Long story short, the evidence is clear and
    convincing that the mother has not affirmatively assumed the duties encompassed
    by the role of being a parent to the child, and the child could not be returned to her
    care at the time of the termination hearing. See 
    Iowa Code § 232.116
    (1)(e)(3),
    (f)(4). Thus, the State met its burden under both grounds.
    Next, the mother passively suggests termination is contrary to the child’s
    best interests. Giving “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
    5
    physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child,” we summarily
    disagree. See 
    Iowa Code § 232.116
    (2). Here, termination furthers the defining
    elements of a child’s best interests—safety and need for a permanent home—
    neither of which the mother has been able to minister to. In re H.S., 
    805 N.W.2d 737
    , 748 (Iowa 2011).
    As for the mother’s request for application of the permissive exception to
    termination in section 232.116(3)(c), the mother failed to meet her burden to show
    “termination would be detrimental to the child . . . due to the closeness of the
    parent-child relationship.” The mother presented no evidence the child would
    suffer physical, mental, or emotional detriment if her rights were terminated. On
    the contrary, the child prefers termination and adoption by her grandmother, with
    whom she feels safe, happy, and secure.
    Finally, to the extent that the mother requests “an extension of
    permanency,” she has not enumerated what factors, conditions, or expected
    behavioral changes will alleviate the need for removal at the end of an extension.
    See 
    Iowa Code § 232.104
    (2)(b). Given the mother’s record, neither can we. So
    we conclude an extension of time is not warranted, and we affirm the termination
    of the mother’s parental rights.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-0579

Filed Date: 6/29/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/29/2022