In the Interest of M.W., Minor Child ( 2021 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-1576
Filed February 3, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF M.W.,
Minor Child,
N.L., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin Parker,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the permanency order entered in a child-in-need-of-
assistance proceeding. AFFIRMED.
Kelsey Knight of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Meredith L. Lamberti, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Magdalena Reese of Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Danilson, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2021).
2
DANILSON, Senior Judge.
A mother appeals the permanency order entered in a child-in-need-of-
assistance (CINA) proceeding that placed the child in a guardianship. The mother
requested an extension of time to work on reunification with the child. We find it is
not likely the child could be returned to the mother’s care within six months and it
would not be in the child’s best interests to further delay the case. We affirm the
decision of the juvenile court.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
N.L., mother, and K.W., father, are the parents of M.W., born in 2004. The
mother is married to D.L., and they have two children together, L.L., born in 2011,
and I.L., born in 2013.1 The children were removed from the home on November 6,
2019, due to N.L. and D.L.’s use of methamphetamine. There were also
allegations of domestic violence and that D.L. physically abused the children. This
case involves only M.W., who was placed with the maternal grandparents.
The child was adjudicated CINA, pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.2(6)(c)(2) (2019). In March 2020, the maternal grandmother developed
medical issues and was no longer able to care for the child. I.L. and L.L. were
returned to the care of the mother. M.W. was placed with her biological father for
a short period of time. In April, the child was placed with a paternal cousin, where
she has remained.
The mother had a substance-abuse evaluation and no treatment was
recommended. A drug patch worn in July was negative for all substances. The
1D.L. also has two children from a previous relationship that lived in the home.
They were placed in a guardianship with their grandmother.
3
mother began participating in therapy for mental-health issues. The mother and
D.L. denied there were incidents of domestic violence in their relationship. The
mother participated in visitation with the child. The Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS) reported “[the child] has cancelled some visits with [D.L. and the
mother], claiming each time that incidents had occurred that caused her to want
distance before returning.”
M.W., who was a teenager, was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with
depressed mood. She attended weekly therapy sessions. She stated that she
wanted to remain living with the paternal cousin and did not want to return to the
mother’s care. She stated her life with the paternal cousin was more stable and
routine. The child wanted to continue to have visits with the mother. However,
she reported that she had been physically abused by D.L. and did not feel safe
around him.
A permanency hearing was held on November 18. The mother asked for a
six-month extension to work on reunification. She stated she wanted to work on
family therapy with the child. The State and the guardian ad litem (GAL)
recommended that the child be placed in a guardianship with the paternal cousin.
The GAL stated, “I do not believe that it’s reasonably likely that [the child] would
be ready for a full return within six months.”
The juvenile court placed the child in a guardianship with the paternal
cousin. At the hearing, the court stated:
Now, I don’t know if the parties realize it, but a guardianship
is not a permanent type of situation. I would hope that through
therapy and visitation, possibly the guardianship could end in the
future, or it could be a situation that all the parties will be getting along
so well that there will be some back and forth movement and not
4
necessarily in a negative way, but in a positive way with the children
spending some time with Mom and Dad. So I’m not going to extend
it for another six months as to permanency. This appears to be in
the best interest of the children.
The mother appeals the decision of the juvenile court.
II. Standard of Review
Our review of CINA proceedings is de novo. In re L.H., 904 N.W.2d 145,
149 (Iowa 2017). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. In re J.S.,
846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa 2014).
III. Discussion
The mother contends the juvenile court should have granted her an
extension of six months rather than entering a permanency order placing the child
in a guardianship. The mother states that she and the child could participate in
family therapy sessions. She points out that the two younger children, I.L. and L.L.
were returned to her care. The mother acknowledges, however, that the
circumstances for this child were different, as she did not want to return to the
home of her mother and step-father.
Under section 232.104(2)(b), the juvenile court may continue a child’s
placement for an additional six months. In order to grant a six-month extension,
the court must make a “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.”
Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). We consider whether it is likely the need for removal
will continue to exist after six months. In re L.H., 949 N.W.2d 268, 272 (Iowa Ct.
App. 2020). “The judge considering [an extension of time] should however
constantly bear in mind that, if the plan fails, all extended time must be subtracted
5
from an already shortened life for the child[] in a better home.” In re A.A.G., 708
N.W.2d 85, 92 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005). If a child has already been out of the home
for more than twelve months, “we view the proceedings with a sense of urgency.”
Id. An extension should be granted only if it is in the best interests of a child. In
re R.C., 523 N.W.2d 757, 760 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994).
The juvenile court considered the mother’s progress and request for an
extension of time and determined it was not likely the child could be returned to
the mother’s care within six months. See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). The child
claimed she had been physically abused by D.L. and wanted to stay in her current
placement. Both the mother and D.L. denied the abuse. The mother continued in
her relationship with D.L. The child’s safety concerns in this case would remain
after six months because the mother saw no reason to make any changes.
Additionally, the child needs a more stable and secure environment than the
mother can provide. The mother and child need further therapy. We find an
extension of time under the facts of this case would not be in the child’s best
interests. See R.C., 523 N.W.2d at 760.
We affirm the juvenile court’s decision placing the child in a guardianship.
AFFIRMED.