In the Interest of L.H., Minor Child ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-0498
Filed July 26, 2023
IN THE INTEREST OF L.H.,
Minor Child,
E.R., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Eric W. Manning of Manning Law Office, PLLC, Urbandale, for appellant
mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Miguel Alvarado of Branstad & Olson Law Office, Des Moines, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Carr, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2023).
2
CARR, Senior Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. We find there is
sufficient evidence in the record to support termination of the mother’s parental
rights, it would not be in the child’s best interests to grant an extension of time, and
none of the exceptions to termination should be applied. We affirm the termination
of the mother’s parental rights.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
E.R. is the mother of L.H., who was born in 2021.1 At the time of the child’s
birth, the mother was involved in child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) proceedings
with an older child, C.R.2 The mother has a history of substance-abuse and
mental-health problems. There were also concerns about domestic violence in the
mother’s relationship with her paramour, A.H.
In August 2021, the mother tested positive for amphetamines,
methamphetamine, and marijuana. L.H. was removed from the mother’s custody
and placed with the maternal great-grandmother. At the removal hearing the
mother “was repeatedly escalated, argumentative and non responsive to
questions. She was either unable and/or unwilling to listen to court direction.”
There was a CINA adjudication hearing for the child on February 21, 2022.
At the hearing, the mother screamed at the judge. The court found, “The mother’s
demeanor and out of control conduct was consistent with an individual using
1 The child’s father is unknown. The rights of any unknown or putative fathers were
terminated, and no father appeals.
2 The mother’s parental rights to C.R. were subsequently terminated. That
termination was affirmed on appeal. See In re C.R., No. 22-1382, 2022 WL
16634374, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2022). We noted the mother’s “history of
chaos and turmoil which has directly impacted her child.” Id.3
drugs.” She was not receiving treatment for substance abuse and stated she
continued to use marijuana. The mother continued to live with A.H.
In March, the mother’s drug patch was positive for marijuana and A.H.’s
drug patch was positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. At the dispositional
hearing in April, the mother stated she had ended her relationship with A.H.
However, he was arrested at her home in May. The mother tested positive for
cocaine and marijuana in August.
In a permanency order filed on October 24, the court found the Iowa
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) failed to provide the mother with
reasonable efforts for one month due to a misunderstanding.3 The court
determined the mother should have an extension of one month to cure the lack of
reasonable efforts for one month. The child was placed with a great-aunt and
uncle, who were willing to adopt the child.
On November 30, the State filed a petition to terminate the mother’s rights.
The mother had a substance-abuse evaluation. She reported her last use of
marijuana was December 14 and her last use of cocaine was December 10. The
mother was diagnosed with severe cannabis use disorder, severe cocaine use
disorder, and severe alcohol use disorder.
At the termination hearing on January 3, 2023, the mother testified she was
in an intensive outpatient program and on a waitlist to start an inpatient program.
She was attending mental-health and substance-abuse counseling as part of the
outpatient program. The mother stated she was not in a position to have the child
3 Following the termination of the mother’s rights to C.R., her visits with C.R. ended.
HHS mistakenly ended the mother’s visits with L.H. as well at that time.
4
returned to her custody at that time because she needed to complete treatment
and then find housing. She asked for a six-month extension in the case.
The juvenile court entered an order terminating the mother’s parental rights
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g), (h), and (l) (2022).4 The court found the
mother was not a credible witness “based upon her inconsistent statements and
demeanor while testifying.” The court also found:
Termination of the parents’ rights is in the child’s best interest
and less detrimental than the harm caused by continuing the parent-
child relationship. There are no compelling reasons to maintain the
parental rights and no exceptions that outweigh termination being in
the child’s best interest. The child’s safety can best be ensured by
termination.
The court considered the exceptions in section 232.116(3) and determined they
should not be applied. The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.
II. Standard of Review
Our review of termination proceedings is de novo. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d
764, 773 (Iowa 2012). The State must prove its allegations for termination by clear
and convincing evidence. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). “‘Clear
and convincing evidence’ means there are no serious or substantial doubts as to
the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.” Id. Our primary
concern is the best interests of the children. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa
2014).
In general, we follow a three-step analysis in reviewing the termination of a
parent’s rights. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010). We first consider
4 The language of section 232.116(1)(l) was subsequently amended twice. See
2022 Iowa Acts ch. 1098, § 59; 2023 Iowa Acts S.F. 514, § 625.
5
whether there is a statutory ground for termination of the parent’s rights under
section 232.116(1). Id. Second, we look to whether termination of the parent’s
rights is in the child’s best interests. Id. (citing Iowa Code § 232.116(2)). Third,
we consider whether any of the exceptions to termination in section 232.116(3)
should be applied. Id.III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The mother claims the State did not present sufficient evidence to support
termination of her parental rights. “We will uphold an order terminating parental
rights where there is clear and convincing evidence of the statutory grounds for
termination.” In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425, 434 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). “When the
juvenile court orders termination of parental rights on more than one statutory
ground, we need only find grounds to terminate on one of the sections to affirm.”
Id. at 435. We elect to focus on the termination of the mother’s parental rights
under section 232.116(1)(h).5
The mother states that she wanted the child returned to her custody and
she was taking steps to address the issues of substance abuse, mental health,
and domestic violence. One of the criteria in section 232.116(1)(h) is whether a
5 Section 232.116(1)(h) provides for termination of parental rights when the court
finds:
(1) The child is three years of age or younger.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of
assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of
the child’s parents for at least six months of the last twelve months,
or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home
has been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child
cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided
in section 232.102 at the present time.
6
child can be returned to the parent at the time of the termination hearing. See In
re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 294 (Iowa 2021); In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 111 (Iowa
2014).
During the termination hearing, the mother testified:
Q. Okay. Considering where we are today, do you believe
that you are in a position to regain care of [L.H.] today? A. No.
Q. Okay. What do you think needs to happen before you
would be ready? A. Completion of treatment, completion of the
services that I need, and housing.
The mother also agreed the child had been out of her custody for “essentially his
entire life,” and the child needed permanency.
We determine the juvenile court properly found there was clear and
convincing evidence the child could not be safely returned to the mother’s custody
at the time of the termination hearing under section 232.116(1)(h).
IV. Extension of Time
At the termination hearing, the mother asked for an extension of time to
work toward reunification. A six-month extension may be granted under sections
232.104(2)(b) and 232.117(5) if parental rights are not terminated following a
termination hearing. In re D.P., No. 21-0884, 2021 WL 3891722, at *2 (Iowa Ct.
App. Sept. 1, 2021). An extension may be granted if the court “determin[es] 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.” In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 92 (Iowa Ct.
App. 2005) (quoting Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b)). “The judge considering [the
extension] should however constantly bear in mind that, if the plan fails, all
extended time must be subtracted from an already shortened life for the child[ ] in
a better home.” Id. (citation omitted).
7
In discussing the mother’s request for an extension, the court stated the
mother “has provided dramatically inconsistent information re: her cocaine usage
and participation in services.” The court found her “demeanor while testifying was
concerning.” Also, HHS did not believe an extension of time was in the child’s best
interests.
We conclude a six-month extension would not be appropriate in this case.
The child was removed from the mother’s custody in August 2021. At the time of
the termination hearing in January 2023 the mother was only beginning to address
the problems that led to the child’s removal—substance abuse, domestic violence,
and mental-health concerns. It is not likely “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.”
See A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d at 92.
V. Exceptions
The mother claims the court should have applied the exception to
termination found in section 232.116(3)(c), which provides a court need not
terminate a parent’s rights if “[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that the
termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of
the parent-child relationship.” The mother states she “attempted to have an
ongoing meaningful relationship with the child.”
The exceptions to termination found “in section 232.116(3) are permissive,
not mandatory.” In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 324 (Iowa 2021) (citation omitted).
“The court may exercise its discretion in deciding whether to apply the factors in
section 232.116(3) to save the parent-child relationship based on the unique
circumstances of each case and the best interests of the children.” In re A.R., 932
8
N.W.2d 588, 591 (Iowa Ct. App. 2019). “[O]nce the State has proven a ground for
termination, the parent resisting termination bears the burden to establish an
exception to termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(3) . . . .” In re A.S., 906
N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018). The child’s best interests remain our first
consideration. Id. at 475.
In addressing this issue, the juvenile court stated:
Pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116, the Court considered
the parents’ bond with the child. The Court does not believe “the
termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the
closeness of the parent-child relationship.” When the mother did not
get her way in obtaining a new in-home worker, she chose to not visit
[L.H.] He has been removed from the mother’s custody, for almost
his entire life. Furthermore, even if there was evidence to support
this exception, the Court would still terminate the mother’s rights, due
to [L.H.’s] need for permanency. It is in his best interest to terminate
parental rights and be adopted.
We determine the mother has not met her burden to show an exception to
termination should be applied. The evidence does not show that termination of
her parental rights would be detrimental to the child based on a close relationship
between the mother and the child. The child has been out of the mother’s custody
for almost the entirety of the child’s life. The child is reportedly “very happy” at his
current placement with relatives who would like to adopt him. We find the
exception to termination in section 232.116(3)(c) should not be applied.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.