In re J.W. and M.W., Minor Children ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-0270
Filed June 7, 2023
IN THE INTEREST OF J.W. and M.W.,
Minor Children,
A.L., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David Staudt,
Judge.
A mother appeals an order terminating her parental rights to two children.
AFFIRMED.
Andrew C. Abbott of Abbott Law Office, P.C., Waterloo, for appellant
mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Kelly Jo Smith of the Juvenile Public Defender’s Office, Waterloo, attorney
and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
A mother appeals an order terminating her parental rights to twins, born in
2021. She putatively challenges the evidence supporting the grounds for
termination cited by the district court. She also contends the district court should
not have terminated her parental rights based on the fact that a relative had
custody of the children and based on the claimed bond she shared with them.
The district court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (h) (2022). The mother appears to argue that she
maintained significant and meaningful contact with the children, precluding
termination under section 232.116(1)(e). She does not challenge the evidence
supporting termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h), which requires
proof of several elements including proof a child cannot be returned to parental
custody. Accordingly, we could affirm on the unchallenged ground. See In re P.L.,
778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010) (finding it unnecessary to discuss the grounds for
termination where the father did not challenge them). We elect to address the
evidence supporting termination under the challenged ground.
The mother tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamine when she
delivered the twins. The children were discharged from the hospital to the home
of their maternal grandmother, where the mother had been living. The mother
initially followed a safety plan implemented by the Iowa Department of Health and
Human Services. Approximately two months after the children’s birth, the
grandparents reported that the mother left the home and was found at another
home with bruises all over her face. The grandparents surmised she had been
beaten. Later the same day, the mother came to the grandparents’ home in a state
3
of heightened anxiety and said she planned to leave the State with the children.
Police were called. They took her to a hospital after she threatened to harm
herself.
The department applied to have the children temporarily removed. The
district court granted the application. The parents stipulated to continued
temporary removal of the children as well as their adjudication as children in need
of assistance. Care, custody, and control of the children was placed with the
grandparents.
The mother, who was on parole, regularly met with her parole officer and,
for a period of time, tested negative for illicit drugs. Six months after the children’s
birth, she stopped visiting them despite “the opportunity to be with them on a daily
basis.” Although she briefly reinitiated contact, she curtailed visits and other
reunification services in mid-July 2022, following the issuance of an arrest warrant
which, according to the department, was for “[v]iolations of her probation.” While
she attended the children’s one-year birthday party in November 2022, she did not
appear at the termination hearing the next month. Her attorney informed the court
he had not had any contact with her for five months.
The mother was arrested and incarcerated before the termination order was
filed. Shortly thereafter, the State applied to have the children removed from the
grandparents’ custody after marijuana and guns were found in their home.
Approximately one hour before filing the termination order, the district court
transferred care, custody, and control of the children to the department for
placement in foster care.
4
On our de novo review of the record, we conclude the mother did not have
significant and meaningful contact with the children. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)(e)(3) (“‘[S]ignificant and meaningful contact’ includes but is not
limited to the affirmative assumption by the parents of the duties encompassed by
the role of being a parent. This affirmative duty, in addition to financial obligations,
requires continued interest in the child, a genuine effort to complete the
responsibilities prescribed in the case permanency plan, a genuine effort to
maintain communication with the child, and requires that the parents establish and
maintain a place of importance in the child’s life.”); In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315,
323 (Iowa 2021) (finding clear and convincing evidence to support termination
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) where the father “had ample opportunity
to meet with and participate in [the child’s] life during the relevant six-month period
. . . [but] made very little effort to become part of [the child’s] life”).
We turn to the “relative custody” and parent-child bond exceptions to
termination. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(a), (c). Although the grandparents had
custody of the children at the time of the termination hearing, the mother’s absence
from the children’s lives for the six months preceding the termination hearing
served as grounds for declining to invoke the relative exception, especially in light
of the department’s recommendation to proceed with termination. See In re A.S.,
906 N.W.2d 467, 476-77 (Iowa 2018) (giving weight to the testimony of the
department case manager). As for the mother’s claimed bond with the children,
she made scant effort to foster the relationship in the six months preceding the
termination hearing. For these reasons, the court appropriately declined to invoke
the exceptions.
5
We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to the children.
AFFIRMED.