In the Interest of L.P., Minor Child ( 2024 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1795
Filed January 24, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF L.P.,
Minor Child,
A.P., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, Kristal L. Phillips,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to a child.
AFFIRMED.
Justin F. Reininger of Boerner & Goldsmith Law Firm, P.C., Ida Grove, for
appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Kelsea M. Hawley of Minnich, Comito, & Neu, P.C., Carroll, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Chicchelly, P.J., Buller, J., and Danilson, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2024).
2
CHICCHELLY, Presiding Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to a child born in
2014. She challenges the evidence showing the child cannot be returned to her
care and argues the State failed to make reasonable efforts to return the child to
her custody. After reviewing the record de novo, see In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703,
706 (Iowa 2010), we affirm.
The family has a long history of involvement with the Iowa Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS), which investigated allegations of drug use,
child abuse, and domestic violence in the home. After the child witnessed the
mother’s boyfriend, Z.S., fighting his father in December 2021, the State began
child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) proceedings. The child remained in the
mother’s home until April 2022, when concerns about Z.S.’s methamphetamine
use and the mother’s protective capabilities caused the juvenile court to remove
the child from the mother’s custody.
In the year following the CINA adjudication and removal, little changed.
Despite further incidents of domestic violence, the mother continued her romantic
relationship with Z.S, claiming he was “one of the most positive support systems
that [she has] outside of [her] mom.” The HHS offered Z.S. services, but he
refused to participate and was arrested on drug charges. In its May 2023
permanency order, the juvenile court found that more time would not change the
outcome of the CINA proceedings and ordered the State to petition for termination
of parental rights. Five days after the State filed the termination petition, it placed
the child with a former stepmother and half-sibling in the State of Nevada. The
3
court held the termination hearing in August before terminating the mother’s
parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (f) (2023).1
The mother challenges the termination of her parental rights, arguing that
the evidence shows the child could be returned to her care at the time of the
termination hearing. She also argues that the State failed to make reasonable
efforts under section 232.102(7).2 Even limiting our review to
section 232.116(1)(f), we must consider both issues. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)(f)(4) (allowing termination if there is “clear and convincing evidence
that at the present time the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s
parents as provided in section 232.102”); In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521, 527 (Iowa
2019) (stating that the reasonable-efforts requirement impacts the State’s burden
of proving the children cannot be safely returned home and is not a strict
substantive requirement for termination). In doing so, we are convinced that the
child could not be returned to the mother’s care at the time of the termination
hearing. Because the evidence supports terminating the mother’s parental rights
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f), we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
1 The court also terminated the father’s parental rights, but he does not appeal.
2 The mother argues that the child’s out-of-state move hindered reunification
efforts. But that move occurred after permanency and the State’s filing of the
termination petition. Although the obligation to provide reasonable efforts
continues until a final written termination order, the State need not make
reasonable efforts toward reunification in some situations. In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d
521, 528 (Iowa 2019). “Our caselaw has recognized that the interests of the child
take precedence over family reunification.” Id. at 529.