In the Interest of E.C., L.C., and N.C., Minor Children, R.C., Mother

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1791
Filed December 21, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF E.C., L.C., and N.C.,
Minor Children,
R.C., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Angela L. Doyle,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Derek J. Johnson of Johnson & Bonzer, P.L.C., Fort Dodge, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Sarah J. Livingston of Thatcher, Tofilon & Livingston, P.L.C., Fort Dodge,
for minor children.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.
2
DANILSON, Chief Judge.
A mother1 appeals the termination of her parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(b), (e), (f), (h) and (l) (2015). We review termination of
parental rights proceedings de novo. In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa
2014).
The mother does not challenge that grounds for termination exist, 2 but
does assert the court should have allowed her an additional six months to seek
reunification with her children. She also argues termination of her parental rights
was not in the children’s best interests.
The mother has three children: E.C., born September 2013; N.C., born
September 2010; and L.C., born May 2009. The department of human services
(DHS) was first involved in this family’s life in May 2011 after it was alleged that
both parents used methamphetamine while caring for L.C. and N.C. The same
problems re-surfaced four years later in May 2015, when the parents were again
using methamphetamine. The hair stat drug tests performed on the children on
May 26, 2015, were positive for methamphetamine.
The children were removed from the physical custody of their parents on
May 26, 2015, and were adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA) on
July 30, 2015. The concerns identified at that time were related to the parents’
substance abuse, mental-health issues, and domestic abuse. The children
remained out of the parents’ custody after May 2015. There were no trial periods
at home.
1
The father’s rights were also terminated. He does not appeal.
2
When a parent does not dispute the grounds for termination of parental rights, we need
not discuss the issue. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010).
3
Both parents continued to relapse and use illegal substances during the
pendency of the underlying CINA proceedings. The mother admitted substance
use on May 14, July 10, July 20, and December 17, 2015, and in January and
February 2016. She then left the state of Iowa and her whereabouts were
unknown for some time. She had gone to New Mexico. In May 2016, the mother
sought telephone contact with her children but L.C.’s therapist would not support
the contact. The mother returned to Iowa in July 2016. She had a supervised
visit with L.C. on August 4. The DHS social worker testified about this visit at the
termination trial, stating:
Yes, I staffed this with [L.C.]'s therapist and the GAL
[guardian ad litem] in regards to initiating contact between the girls
and [the mother]. We were starting out with [L.C.], because [L.C.]
seems to be the one that struggles the most mental health wise and
so we did do a visit, it did go very well. [L.C., then age seven] did
struggle after the interaction. She went back to baby talk, she was
crawling around like a baby. Her behaviors were so bad that her
caretaker had to call her therapist on the weekend to ask what to
do, because of [L.C.]’s behavior, it was just not like [L.C.] and she
was worried that [L.C.] was having a mental breakdown at the time.
The child’s therapist recommended no further contact with the mother until she
had adequately dealt with her long-standing substance-abuse issues. The only
contact the DHS worker had with the mother after that visit was by email.
The termination-of-parental-rights trial was held on September 7, 2016.
The mother was not present for the trial. The mother’s attorney reported the
mother was living at a shelter in another county and was not able to get
transportation. Counsel reported the mother was working through a temporary
employment agency and also had a work conflict. The mother’s attorney
requested an additional six months to work toward reunification because the
4
mother was currently homeless and she needed to get substance-abuse
treatment initiated again.
The DHS worker recommended termination of the mother’s parental rights
and reported the children were doing very well in their placements. L.C. was with
an aunt. The other two children were with a grandmother. The children were
bonded with their caretakers, who were willing to adopt the children. The worker
testified, “I believe the girls should not have to wait for their parents to get their
lives together, the girls have waited long enough. The girls need a safe and
stable environment to grow up in and I believe that should happen as soon as
possible for them.” The GAL agreed, also recommending termination of parental
rights to provide the children with stability.
The juvenile court denied the mother’s request for additional time, finding
“[t]here is nothing in the extended history of this case that allows the court to
conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that real change will occur that will
eliminate the need for removal over the next six months.” The court concluded
termination of parental rights would best provide the children the security and
stability they needed.
On our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court that no extension
of time is warranted. In August 2015, the mother had entered a residential
treatment program. In September, she was participating in Family Treatment
Court (FTC) and substance abuse treatment. Unfortunately, she chose to leave
the program to move in with the father and began missing substance abuse
treatment in November and December. On January 5, 2016, the mother went to
5
detox, stating she was using methamphetamine on a daily basis and alcohol on
the weekends. The mother reported the father relapsed as well. The mother left
inpatient treatment against staff recommendations on January 12. On January
21, the mother obtained another substance-abuse evaluation, but on January 29,
she was discharged from FTC for failure to follow through with substance-abuse
treatment, attend FTC, and maintain contact with the Family Safety, Risk, and
Permanency provider. She then left the state and was not participating in
services.
The mother remains unable to provide a safe and stable home to the
children after more than fifteen months of the children being removed from her
care. She was homeless at the time of the termination hearing. And while she
reported attending substance-abuse meetings, she had not successfully
completed substance-abuse treatment. Though we encourage the mother to
continue seeking treatment, her past conduct does not bode well for future
change. See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b) (stating an order granting additional
time requires that the court “enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or
expected behavioral changes which comprise the basis for the determination 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”); see also In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489,
495 (Iowa 2000) (“Insight for the determination of the child’s long-range best
interests can be gleaned from ‘evidence of the parent’s past performance for that
performance may be indicative of the quality of the future care that parent is
capable of providing.’” (citation omitted)).
6
“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.” A.M., 843 N.W.2d at 112 (citation omitted). The children are
in good and stable placements where they are doing well. See In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 709 (Iowa 2010) (noting a child’s pre-adoptive placement as a factor
supporting termination under section 232.116(2)). Giving “primary consideration
to the child[ren]’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term
nurturing and growth of the child[ren], and to the physical, mental, and emotional
condition and needs of the child[ren],” we conclude termination of parental rights
and permanency is in the children’s best interest. Iowa Code § 232.116(2). We
therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.