In the Interest of R.C., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-1135
Filed November 4, 2020
IN THE INTEREST OF R.C.,
Minor Child,
M.C., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Ronald E. Langford of Langford Law Office, LLC, Des Moines, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Meredith L. Lamberti, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Erin Romar of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad
litem for minor child.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.
2
BOWER, Chief Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2020). She does not dispute the statutory ground for
termination has been proved. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010)
(noting that if a parent does not dispute grounds exist we need not address the
first step of our three-step analysis). She maintains she should be granted a six-
month extension and contends the loss of her parental rights is not in the child’s
best interests.
Our review of termination proceedings is de novo. In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d
100, 110 (Iowa 2014). “We are not bound by the juvenile court’s findings of fact,
but we do give them weight, especially in assessing the credibility of witnesses.”
Id. (citation omitted).
The mother argues “COVID-19 . . . put[ ] up barriers to compliance with
services opportunities.” The child was removed from the mother’s care in May
2019 due to the presence of methamphetamine in the child’s system at birth. The
mother did not provide requested drug screens and did not follow through with
recommended substance-abuse and mental-health treatment for the many months
before pandemic-related closures. Thus, we are not persuaded the pandemic was
the barrier to reunification.
For children younger than four years old, our legislature has set a six-month
time frame for parent-child reunification. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(3).
“[O]ur legislature has carefully constructed a time frame to provide a balance
between the parent’s efforts and the child’s long-term best interests.” A.M., 843
N.W.2d at 111 (citation omitted). “Once the limitation period lapses, termination
3
proceedings must be viewed with a sense of urgency.” In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d
489, 495 (Iowa 2000).
At the time of the termination-of-parental-rights hearing in June and July
2020, the child had been out of the mother’s custody for more than twelve
consecutive months and the mother had never moved beyond supervised visits.
The trial court wrote:
It is unfortunate, giving the pendency of this matter and the length of
time the child has been removed, that the parents are just beginning
to actively engage in services to be able to demonstrate sobriety,
mental stability and an ability to have the child returned to their care.
It has been well over a year since the removal, and this young child
should not have to wait any longer for permanency.
We agree.
In considering whether the termination of parental rights is in the child’s best
interest, Iowa Code section 232.116(2) instructs “the court shall give primary
consideration to the child’s safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-
term nurturing and growth of the child, and to the physical, mental, and emotional
condition and needs of the child.” This child has waited more than twice the
statutory time frame, and the mother waited too long to engage in services. The
child is in the only home she has ever known and is integrated into that family. The
child needs and deserves permanency. An extension is not warranted here and
termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.