In the Interest of J.L. and J.P., Minor Children ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 18-0324
    Filed April 18, 2018
    IN THE INTEREST OF J.L. and J.P.,
    Minor Children,
    M.M., Mother,
    Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Phillip J. Tabor,
    District Associate Judge.
    Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights pursuant to
    Iowa Code chapter 232 (2017). AFFIRMED.
    J. David Zimmerman, Clinton, for appellant mother.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
    General, for appellee State.
    Brian P. Donnelly of Mayer, Lonergan & Rolfes, P.C., Clinton, guardian ad
    litem for minor children.
    Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ. Tabor, J.,
    takes no part.
    2
    MCDONALD, Judge.
    Mindi appeals from the order terminating her parental rights in her two
    children. Her rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d)
    and (g) (2017) as to J.P. (born 2012) and section 232.116(1)(d), (g), and (h) as to
    J.L. (born 2014). Mindi challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
    statutory grounds authorizing the termination of her parental rights, and she
    contends the juvenile court should have granted her an additional three months’
    time to have the children returned to her care.
    This court reviews termination proceedings de novo. See In re A.M., 
    843 N.W.2d 100
    , 110 (Iowa 2014). The statutory framework authorizing the termination
    of a parent-child relationship is well established and need not be repeated herein.
    See In re P.L., 
    778 N.W.2d 33
    , 39 (Iowa 2010) (setting forth the statutory
    framework). Where, as here, “the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more
    than one statutory ground, we may affirm the juvenile court’s order on any ground
    we find supported by the record.” In re A.B., 
    815 N.W.2d 764
    , 774 (Iowa 2012).
    We choose to address the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
    termination of the mother’s rights authorized by code section 232.116(1)(g). To
    establish termination under this ground, the State must prove:
    (1) The child has been adjudicated in need of assistance pursuant to
    section 232.96.
    (2) The court has terminated parental rights pursuant to section
    232.117 with respect to another child who is a member of the
    same family or a court of competent jurisdiction in another state
    has entered an order involuntarily terminating parental rights with
    respect to another child who is a member of the same family.
    (3) There is clear and convincing evidence that the parent continues
    to lack the ability or willingness to respond to services which
    would correct the situation.
    3
    (4) There is clear and convincing evidence that an additional period
    of rehabilitation would not correct the situation.
    Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(g).      It is not disputed that both children have been
    adjudicated in need of assistance and that Mindi’s parental rights have been
    terminated with respect to another child in the family. The fighting issues are
    whether Mindi lacks the ability to respond to services which would correct the
    situation and whether an additional period of rehabilitation would correct the
    situation. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(g)(3), (4).
    There is clear and convincing evidence Mindi lacks the ability to respond to
    services that would correct the situation. The Iowa Department of Human Services
    (IDHS) became involved with these children in March 2016. At that time, there
    were concerns of physical abuse by the stepfather as well as concerns of
    marijuana use in the presence of the children. The children were not removed
    from the mother’s care at that time, but IDHS monitored the family and offered
    services to the family. In the spring and summer of 2017, there were renewed
    allegations Mindi used marijuana in the presence of the children, left the children
    unsupervised, and allowed inappropriate individuals to be around her children.
    The children were removed from Mindi’s care after Mindi tested positive for both
    THC and methamphetamine. At the same time, one child had a hair-stat test
    positive for THC. The other child’s hair could not be tested due to its short length.
    Since the time of removal, Mindi has demonstrated a consistent lack of
    accountability and responsiveness. Although she began substance-abuse classes
    and mental-health treatment in June 2017, her progress has been minimal. She
    tested positive for marijuana in November 2017 and admitted to a history of
    4
    falsifying drug tests. She also admitted to her caseworker she had attempted to
    purchase drugs with the assurance that an IDHS drug screen would not detect
    them. She was kicked out of her inpatient substance-abuse program in December
    2017 for having a bottle of urine and methamphetamine paraphernalia in her room.
    Still, Mindi denied using methamphetamine. At the time of the termination hearing
    in February 2018, Mindi’s mental-health counselor reported she had last seen
    Mindi on December 19, 2017. Mindi was homeless for much of this case, and she
    had just begun living with an acquaintance from the shelter two weeks before the
    termination hearing. Mindi’s caseworker testified she still had concerns about
    unresolved mental-health issues and would have safety concerns if any visits
    between Mindi and the children were not fully supervised.
    There is also clear and convincing evidence an additional period of
    rehabilitation would not correct the situation. Mindi has had her rights to another
    child terminated. Yet, she has not made any lasting change to avoid termination
    of her rights with respect to these children. There is strong evidence she continues
    to use drugs, including the discovery of urine and paraphernalia in her room at an
    inpatient drug-treatment program. She has been non-compliant with her mental-
    health treatment. She has not had stable housing over the life of the case. At the
    time of the termination hearing, she was residing in a one-bedroom apartment with
    a recent acquaintance. This case is similar to other cases in which we have found
    sufficient evidence to support termination of parental rights. See, e.g., In re B.C.,
    No. 17-0933, 
    2017 WL 4050975
    , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2017) (affirming
    termination under 232.116(1)(g) where mother had history of drug abuse and
    limited success with treatment and other services); In re K.F., No. 14-0892, 2014
    
    5 WL 4635463
    , at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2014) (finding termination appropriate,
    where, as here, “[a]lthough [the mother] has been involved with services
    concerning her children at least three times, she does not obtain any lasting benefit
    from those services”); In re J.C., Nos. 03-0617, 03-0160, 
    2003 WL 21919910
    , at
    *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2003) (finding termination appropriate under section
    232.116(1)(g) where parents had “no insight as to their deficiencies and inabilities
    to parent a child”). We conclude the evidence is sufficient here. “Children simply
    cannot wait for responsible parenting.” In re L.L., 
    459 N.W.2d 489
    , 495 (Iowa
    1990).
    To the extent Mindi raises a challenge to the failure to grant deferred
    permanency under Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b), the challenge is unavailing.
    As explained above, there is no basis to conclude the need for removal will no
    longer exist if Mindi is given additional time. See In re Z.R., No. 17-1004, 
    2017 WL 4050989
    , at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2017). Given Mindi’s past performance
    and unresolved issues, we cannot expect significant improvement in her ability to
    care for the children. See 
    A.B., 815 N.W.2d at 778
    . As the juvenile court noted,
    and we agree, Mindi wants to be a “play Mommy” without the attendant
    responsibilities of providing regular and routine care for her children.
    We affirm the termination of Mindi’s parental rights in both children pursuant
    to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g).
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-0324

Judges: McDonald

Filed Date: 4/18/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024