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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1093
Filed September 27, 2023
IN THE INTEREST OF A.P.,
Minor Child,
S.P., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Kimberly K.
Shepherd, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her child.
AFFIRMED.
J. David Zimmerman, Clinton, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Dion D. Trowers, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Gina L. Kramer, Dubuque, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., Buller, J., and Danilson, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2023).
2
DANILSON, Senior Judge.
A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her child,
born in 2021.1 She contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination
cited by the juvenile court, termination was not in the child’s best interests, and the
department failed to provide reasonable efforts. Upon our review, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
This family came to attention of the department of health and human
services in December 2021, when A.P. and the mother tested positive for illegal
substances (marijuana and THC) at the time of A.P.’s birth. Shortly thereafter, the
mother tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. There were also
concerns about domestic violence in the home. In February 2022, the mother went
to inpatient substance-abuse treatment, which she completed successfully.
Shortly after her discharge in March, she was arrested for stabbing her paramour,
Chris, with scissors.2 The child was removed from the mother’s care, adjudicated
in need of assistance, and placed in foster care, where she has remained.
In April, the mother again entered inpatient treatment, but she left the
program and relapsed. Meanwhile, the mother and Chris continued to be in a
relationship. In May, following a hearing, the juvenile court entered a dispositional
order noting the mother “reports she is getting back into a substance abuse
treatment program.” The court “emphasized to the mother the importance of time,
particularly given the age of the child, and told the mother she has no time to waste
1 The putative fathers’ parental rights were also terminated; no father appeals.
2 The State later dismissed its domestic charge against the mother, and a no-
contact order was also dismissed.
3
in seeking the treatment that she clearly needs.” The mother went back to inpatient
treatment, but she was unsuccessfully discharged “due to fighting.”
In August, following a dispositional review hearing, the court stated, “Since
the last hearing, the mother has failed to address her mental health, has been in
and out of substance abuse treatment, and has been inconsistent in staying in
contact with her child, stating she has ‘a lot going on.’” The court found the child
could not be safely placed in the mother’s care, noting, “The mother has lost
precious, crucial months in bonding time with this child.”
By the following month, the mother had reentered inpatient treatment and
participated in visits with the child at the treatment center. Following a permanency
hearing in November, the court entered an order noting, “Since the last hearing,
the mother has been diligently working on maintaining her sobriety.” The court
further noted, “The visits between the child and the mother are going well, and the
mother is establishing a strong bond with the child.” In light of the mother’s
progress, the court granted her a six-month extension to continue to work toward
reunification.
The mother was discharged successfully from inpatient treatment in
December. However, she moved back in with Chris and shortly thereafter, “there
was an argument between the two of them and [the mother] relapsed on
methamphetamine.” In late January 2023, the mother was arrested on an active
warrant from 2020, and she was incarcerated for ten days.
The court entered a review order in February, noting that “[s]ince [the six-
month extension was granted], the mother has taken a giant step backward in her
progress toward completing the Case Plan goals” “[d]espite repeated warnings the
4
Court has given the mother about the short timelines of this case.” The court
denied the mother’s request for a second extension and determined a change of
the permanency goal from reunification to termination of parental rights was in the
child’s best interests.
The termination hearing took place in May. The parties agreed the mother
was employed, had “appropriate” housing, and was participating in substance-
abuse and mental-health counseling. The mother testified her last date of use was
in the “middle of January” and she felt her treatment was going “better” than it had
in the past. She further stated she was no longer in a relationship with Chris and
she had last spoken to him at the “[e]nd of February, maybe beginning of March.”
The mother believed she would be ready to care for the child “[i]n the very near
future,” and she requested “a very short amount of additional time” for her to “work
for the return of [A.P.] to her care.”
The juvenile court denied the request for an extension and entered an order
terminated the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d),
(e), (h), and (l) (2023). She appeals.
II. Standard of Review
Appellate review of termination-of-parental-rights proceedings is de novo.
In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 293 (Iowa 2021). Our paramount concern in
termination proceedings is the best interests of the children. In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d
521, 529 (Iowa 2019).
III. Grounds for Termination
The mother’s rights were terminated on multiple grounds; we affirm if any
one of the grounds is supported by the record. See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764,
5
774 (Iowa 2012) (“When 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.”). We will focus on paragraph (h). With regard to
that section, the mother only appears to challenge the fourth element—whether
the child could be returned to her care. This element is satisfied when the State
establishes the children cannot be safely returned to the parent at the time of the
termination hearing. In re T.W., No. 20-0145, 2020 WL 1881115, at *2–3 (Iowa
Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2020).
The mother claims, “Reunification between [her] and A.P. was imminent.”
Perhaps in November 2022 the mother’s claim would have been more persuasive.
But even after the court granted her additional time, she continued involvement in
a domestically-violent relationship and used illegal substances. The mother went
to four inpatient treatment programs “during the life of this case”; her last date of
discharge was in December 2022. She tested positive for methamphetamine that
same month, and she tested positive for THC in February 2023, but she stated her
last date of use was in the “middle of January.” The mother is twenty-five years
old. She testified she first tried drugs at age thirteen and started to use regularly
at age seventeen. But she testified her substance-abuse treatment was “going
good”—“better” than her “previous attempts.”
We commend the mother’s continued effort to work on her sobriety. And
although the mother appeared to be turning her life around in the several months
prior to the termination hearing, her actions were too little too late. See In re C.B.,
611 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 2000) (“The changes in the two or three months before
the termination hearing, in light of the preceding eighteen months, are
6
insufficient. . . . [The mother] needed to begin her efforts to pull her life together
and resume care for her children much earlier.”). The State proved the child could
not be safely returned to the mother at the time of the hearing. The mother’s
challenge to the statutory grounds for termination fails.
IV. Best Interests
Termination also must serve the child’s best interests. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2). The guardian ad litem expressed her “concern[ ] about the judgment
or the inability to keep [A.P.] safe that [the mother’s history of drug use and
involvement in domestic violence] shows. [A.P.] is very young. She is fully
dependent on a caretaker to keep her safe.” A caseworker further testified,
“Although [the mother] has made some progress, it’s recent progress. There’s not
a significant length of stability or sobriety demonstrated, and so it’s uncertain
whether she will maintain that and be able to be a safe and sober caregiver for her
daughter.”
We concur the child deserves permanency and an opportunity to be raised
in a safe and stable home free of drugs and domestic abuse. See id. (noting our
statutory best-interests framework considers “the child’s safety, . . . the best
placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of the child, and . . .
the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child”); In re A.M.,
843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (“It is well-settled law that we cannot deprive a
child of permanency after the State has proved a ground for termination under
section 232.116(1) by hoping someday a parent will learn to be a parent and be
able to provide a stable home for the child.”). Upon our review, we conclude
termination is in the child’s best interests.
7
V. Exceptions to Termination
Once the State has proven grounds for termination, the burden shifts to the
parent to prove a permissive exception under section 232.116(3). In re A.S., 906
N.W.2d 467, 475–76 (Iowa 2018). The mother claims the closeness of the parent-
child bond should prompt the court to apply an exception to termination. See Iowa
Code § 232.116(3)(c). Both caseworkers acknowledged a “strong” bond between
the mother and A.P., and commented “they seem comfortable when they engage
with each other.” However, application of the exception under paragraph (c)
“requires clear and convincing evidence that ‘termination would be detrimental to
the child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.’” In re
A.B., 956 N.W.2d 162, 169 (Iowa 2021) (quoting Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c)). The
mother has not established termination of her rights will be detrimental to the child.
VI. Reasonable Efforts
The mother asserts on appeal the department failed to provide reasonable
efforts by not “increase[ing] her interactions with A.P.” after she “made substantial
strides in addressing her substance-abuse and mental-health issues.”3 The State
responds that waiting until the termination hearing to raise her complaints about
services was too late to preserve error.4 We agree. See In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d
3 Reasonable efforts “covers both the efforts to prevent and eliminate the need for
removal.” In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000). “The reasonable efforts
concept would broadly include a visitation arrangement designed to facilitate
reunification while protecting the child from the harm responsible for the removal.”
In re L.M., 904 N.W.2d 835, 839 (Iowa 2017) (citation omitted).
4 Indeed, at the termination hearing, the guardian ad litem observed,
I think the Court has every hearing we’ve had warned [the mother]
up and down that time was very short and progress needed to be
made. And unfortunately, we’re still, even after a six-month
extension of time, at fully supervised visits. There has been talk
8
425, 442 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (noting the parent has the responsibility “to demand
other, different, or addition services prior to the termination hearing” and when the
parent “fails to request other services at the proper time, the parent waives the
issue and may not later challenge it at the termination proceeding” or on appeal
(citations omitted)). While the record indicates the mother “asked [department
caseworkers] for unsupervised or partially supervised” visitation, “raising the issue
to someone other than the court does not preserve error.” In re A.M., No. 23-1022,
2023 WL 5092472, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2023) (citing In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d
144, 148 (Iowa 2002)); In re L.P., No. 22-1824, 2023 WL 1814772, at *3 (Iowa Ct.
App. Feb. 8, 2023) (“The mother did not file a motion with the juvenile court
requesting increased visitation or moving the location of visitation, waiving the
claims on appeal.”).
In any event, we find reasonable efforts were made. The juvenile court
noted the following services were provided, “Parent Partners, [solutions-based
casework], supervised interactions, inpatient and outpatient substance abuse
treatment, random drug testing, mental health treatment, SafePath, Parent Pals,
transportation, and solution focused meetings.” Further, while the mother was in
her latest stint of inpatient treatment, the department allowed partial supervised
interactions and “some overnights.” As the caseworker explained, “Those were
granted knowing that they have people there who can supervise.” But after the
mother’s discharge from treatment, the department determined unsupervised visits
about more visits, medical appointments, that sort of thing. There’s
been no formal request to the Court to—for anything different or that
reasonable efforts are not being made.
9
were not “appropriate yet” because “there’s no reassurance that certain individuals
aren’t around” and “[t]here’s no indication that [the mother’s sobriety] will be long-
term.” Under the circumstances, the department’s decision to decline the mother’s
request for unsupervised visitation in her home at this time was reasonable. See
L.M., 904 N.W.2d at 839; L.T., 924 N.W.2d at 529 (“[T]he interests of the child take
precedence over family reunification.”).
We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.