In the Interest of L.S., Minor Child ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1943
Filed March 7, 2018
IN THE INTEREST OF L.S.,
Minor Child,
S.S.-W., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her child.
AFFIRMED.
Zachary C. Priebe of Jeff Carter Law Offices, P.C., Des Moines, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Brent M. Pattison of Drake Legal Clinic, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for
minor child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Bower, JJ.
2
DANILSON, Chief Judge.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her child,
L.S.,1 pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2017). The mother asserts
the State failed to prove the child could not be returned to her care at the time of
the termination trial, failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify mother and child,
should have allowed her additional time to achieve reunification, and the close
bond between mother and child should weigh against termination. On our de
novo review, see In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010), we find no merit
in any of the mother’s claims, and we therefore affirm.
L.S. was born in November 2016 to the mother, who was then sixteen
years old; had a history of delinquency; had struggled to have any control over
her own temper; had a long history of mental-health struggles, violent outbursts,
and assaults on people and property; and was in the custody of Juvenile Court
Services. A removal order was entered shortly after birth, however, the mother
and infant’s location was unknown. The mother and child were located on
December 4—the infant was placed in foster care and the mother was placed in
detention. The child was moved to a long-term, foster-family placement, where
she is doing well and has become integrated in the family.
Unfortunately, the mother has not fared well over the course of these
proceedings. Her mental health and behavior have continued to be troublesome
issues. She has been offered numerous services, has been in and out of
treatment and detention, and has struggled to find a program in which she can
function and learn to control her anger. When the mother has been in a
1
The father has not appealed the termination of his parental rights.
3
controlled setting, she has exercised supervised visits with L.S., which generally
go well. However, when the mother is “in the community,” she does not exercise
visits regularly and has not made the child a priority. At the time of the hearing
on the petition to terminate parental rights in September 2017, the mother was
again in detention,2 was expecting her second child, and was hoping to find a
structured custodial setting suitable for her mental-health needs.
The State has proved by clear and convincing evidence that the child is
three years of age or younger, has been adjudicated a child in need of
assistance, has been out of the mother’s custody for more than the statutory six
consecutive months, and could not be returned to the mother’s care at the time of
the termination hearing.3 Consequently, grounds for termination of her parental
rights have been proved under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h).
The mother has not identified any specific shortcomings in providing
services to her. We agree with the juvenile court the mother has been provided
not only reasonable services but “extraordinary” services, though she has been
unable to benefit sufficiently from the services to provide her child with safe and
stable care. The mother is herself in need of extensive and extended assistance
to deal with her own past traumatic experiences and to achieve some semblance
2
The mother testified she had seven delinquency cases of “assaults mostly.”
3
The mother’s brief provided the court with information outside of the record. In
reaching our conclusion, we did not consider facts that were not a part of the record.
See Iowa R. App. P. 6.801 (stating record on appeal consists of the “original documents
and exhibits filed in the district court . . . , the transcript of proceedings, if any, and a
certified copy of the related docket and court calendar entries prepared by the clerk of
the district court”); Ranes v. Adams Labs., Inc., 778 N.W.2d 677, 697 n.4 (Iowa 2010)
(excluding from discussion evidentiary facts proposed by plaintiff outside the record);
Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., 696 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Iowa 2005) (“[T]he appellate courts cannot
consider materials that were not before the district court when that court entered its
judgment.”).
4
of self-sufficiency and stability. We do not find this to be an appropriate case to
allow additional time to seek reunification. See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b)
(allowing the juvenile court to grant an additional six months but, to do so, the
court must make a determination the need for removal will no longer exist at the
end of the extension). We do not question the mother’s love for the child, but the
mother must tend to her own needs before she can become a responsible
parent. A child should not be required to continuously wait for the parent to
become mature, stable, and reliable. See D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707.
As noted, the child is integrated and doing well in her current placement
with a family who has expressed the desire to make her a permanent part of the
family. We conclude termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s
best interests. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2) (setting forth the factors in
determining the child’s best interests). And while there is a bond between
mother and child, this is not a situation in which “termination would be detrimental
to the child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.”4
See id. § 232.116(3)(c). We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights
to L.S.
AFFIRMED.
4
The statutory factors weighing against termination are permissive, not mandatory. See
In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458, 474-75 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011). The court has discretion,
based on the unique circumstances of each case and the best interests of the child, to
apply the factors in section 232.116(3) to save the parent-child relationship. See In re
A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 113 (Iowa 2014). Our consideration is not merely whether there
is a parent-child bond, “our consideration must center on whether the child will be
disadvantaged by termination, and whether the disadvantage overcomes” the parent’s
inability to provide for the child’s developing needs. See D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 709.