In the Interest of P.C., Minor Child ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-0238
Filed April 26, 2023
IN THE INTEREST OF P.C.,
Minor Child,
D.C., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County,
Kimberly K. Shepherd, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.
AFFIRMED.
Jennifer Margaret Triner Olsen, Davenport, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Dion D. Trowers, Assistant Attorney
General for appellee State.
Gina L. Kramer of Kramer Law Office, PLLC, Dubuque, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.
2
BADDING, Judge.
A mother who remains under an indefinite mental-health commitment
appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child—born in 2021—under
Iowa Code section 232.116(d), (e), (h), (i), and (k) (2022).1 She argues termination
is contrary to the child’s best interests and she should have been granted more
time to work toward reunification.2
In January 2022, the mother “was found wandering in the middle of the
street nude, and irrational.” She was taken to the emergency room for evaluation
and later sedated due to her mental state. Police officers went to the family home
to look for the children the mother kept mentioning.3 The home was “barely
furnished with clothes and trash throughout,” the older child was found in a
bedroom wearing only a t-shirt with no pants, and the infant was found under
blankets and dirty clothes. The infant was “cold to the touch” and diagnosed with
hypothermia. The State obtained an order for temporary removal and filed child-
in-need-of-assistance petitions. The mother was admitted to the behavioral health
unit of the hospital for several days.
Once she was released from the hospital, the mother began participating in
visits. But, in early February, she was arrested for trespass and interference with
1 The parental rights of “any and all unknown fathers” were also terminated. No
father appeals.
2 In her petition on appeal, the mother also cites Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(a),
which contains a permissive exception to termination when a relative has legal
custody of the child. From the outset, we conclude this exception does not apply,
since the child was in the custody of the Iowa Department of Health and Human
Services.
3 The mother has two children—the one involved in this appeal and an older child,
born in 2018. The older sibling is not involved in this appeal.
3
official acts after she was found wandering the hallways of a hotel. A few days
later, she was readmitted to the behavioral health unit at the hospital. Then she
disappeared for roughly two weeks. When service providers went to her home to
check on her, the mother was irrational and verbally abusive. The child was
adjudicated to be in need of assistance in late February.
The department did not know where the mother was from mid-February until
mid-May, when the caseworker was contacted by a mental-health facility located
about two hours away from the child’s foster care placement. The caseworker
learned that the mother had been placed at the facility in March under a court-
ordered commitment that required her to be there for at least eighteen months,
which would be followed by some sort of step-down program. While at the facility,
the mother was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type; major
depressive disorder; and post-traumatic stress disorder. The facility’s records
stated the mother had struggled with those illnesses for several years.
By the time of the permanency hearing in October, the mother’s treatment
plan at the mental-health facility indicated that she would be there until at least July
2023. The plan also noted she “is not permitted alone time,” required “24-hour on-
site supervision,” and could not handle her finances or medications. The
department accordingly recommended that a termination petition be filed.
The State filed its termination petition in November, and a hearing on the
petition was held in December. An updated treatment plan from the mental-health
facility disclosed the mother still could not be alone and required around-the-clock
supervision, though she had been moved to a “hab house” with three roommates.
On direct examination by her attorney, the mother testified that she thought she
4
would be discharged in about six months, after which she intended to move in with
a cousin before getting an apartment of her own. But on cross-examination, the
mother clarified that she would only be eligible for discharge in six months. And
even then, she was uncertain whether she would meet the requirements for
discharge.
In its termination ruling, the court denied the mother’s request for more time
because she would not be discharged from the facility for “many months” and then
would need to establish stability before the child could be returned to her custody.
The court concluded “[t]his child simply cannot continue to wait in foster care, for
what is, in reality, an indefinite, undefined period of time, for her mother’s mental
health to be fully addressed to the point where [the mother] can live on her own
and also support a child.” The court also acknowledged the “sad reality that, based
on her mental health condition, [the mother] may never be in a position to fully care
for herself, or for her child.” The mother appeals.
Following our de novo review of the record, see In re L.B., 970
N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022), we first turn to the mother’s best-interests
challenge. We “give 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
physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child.” Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2). On this point, the mother only notes that, before removal, she cared
for the child’s older sibling for three years without incident, which “demonstrates
that [she] can care for children.” Even if we were to assume the mother
demonstrated parenting stability in the past, her prior parenting of the older sibling
carries little weight on whether termination is in this child’s best interests at present.
5
The child was roughly one month old when she was removed and has lived most
of her short life outside the mother’s care. She is integrated with her current foster
family, where her older sibling also resides. See id. § 232.116(2)(b). The foster
parents, who are open to adoption, have provided for the child’s safety, nurturing
and growth, and needs. Due to the mother’s unfortunate circumstances, she
simply has not been in a position to do the same. Because termination followed
by adoption will satisfy this child’s safety and need for a permanent home, we
conclude termination is in her best interests. See In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748
(Iowa 2011).
Alternatively, the mother requests more time to work toward reunification.
Additional time is appropriate only if we can conclude “the need for removal . . . will
no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period.” Iowa Code
§ 232.104(2)(b). The mother argues that because she is “going to be discharged
from the facility in six . . . months,” she should have been granted an extension “so
she could be out and prove she can care for the child when she is not in an
involuntary commitment.” But, as noted, the mother testified that there is no
guarantee she will be discharged in six months, only that she would be eligible for
discharge then. Cf. In re L.S., No. 21-2000, 2022 WL 2826024, at *1 (Iowa Ct.
App. July 20, 2022) (“We don’t even know if [the parent] will be out of jail or prison
by then. So we have no basis to conclude an extension of time is warranted.”).
Even after she is discharged, the mother would still need more time to show
stability with her mental health in the community before the child could be returned
to her custody. Given the time that has already passed in this child’s young life,
we agree with the juvenile court that more time is not appropriate. See In re
6
C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 2000) (“Once the limitation period lapses,
termination proceedings must be viewed with a sense of urgency.”).
For these reasons, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.