Opinion
23-1307
10-25-2023
IN THE INTEREST OF M.A. and N.A., Minor Children, M.W., Mother, Appellant.
Barbara E. Maness of Kimball-Stevenson House, Davenport, for appellant mother. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Brian P. Donnelly of Mayer, Lonergan &Rolfes, Clinton, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Michael Motto, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children.
Barbara E. Maness of Kimball-Stevenson House, Davenport, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Brian P. Donnelly of Mayer, Lonergan &Rolfes, Clinton, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Buller, J., and Scott, S.J. [*]
SCOTT, SENIOR JUDGE.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two of her children, M.A., born in 2018, and N.A., born in 2022. She contends termination is not in the children's best interests. She also requests an extension of time for resolution of criminal charges against her or that a guardianship be established as an alternative to termination. Upon our review, we affirm.
The mother's parental rights to another child were terminated in 2017. "The concerns in that case also included illegal drug use and a lack of follow through with treatment."
The father's parental rights were also terminated; he does not appeal.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
This family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services in October 2021, following the "suspicious" death of the parties' then-youngest child, two-year-old A.A., in the family's home. At that time, M.A. tested positive for methamphetamine, cocaine, benzoylecgonine, cannabidiol, and THC. The parents also tested positive for drugs. The department learned that in August 2021, M.A. wandered away from the home unsupervised. When officers went to the home, the parents were present. Officers found nearly two pounds of marijuana, one pound of marijuana wax, psilocybin mushrooms, and over $5000 in cash. Drugs and paraphernalia were accessible to the children. There were also concerns about the condition of the home; the floors were "covered in garbage, dirty diapers, and other miscellaneous debris" and "[t]here were mice in the home as well."
The father's test was positive for multiple substances; the mother's test was positive for THC.
M.A. was removed from the home, adjudicated in need of assistance, and placed with the paternal grandfather. N.A. was born in March 2022; she was removed from the parents' custody at that time and was also placed with the paternal grandfather. In June, N.A.'s hair stat test came back positive for THC. The children were subsequently removed from the paternal grandfather's home due to concerns about drug use and evidence he was providing drugs to the father. The children were placed with the paternal grandmother, where they have remained since.
By the time of a dispositional review order in October 2022, A.A.'s cause of death had been determined to be "a fentanyl overdose." The parents were arrested and charged with three counts of child endangerment, including one count of child endangerment resulting in death. The court noted neither parent had "taken any responsibility for [the child's] death."
A permanency hearing took place in January 2023, during which the department requested the goal be changed from reunification to termination of parental rights and adoption. The guardian ad litem supported the department's recommendation. Despite the parents' request that a guardianship be entered with the paternal grandmother, the court observed "[t]he parents are no closer to reunification today than they were when the cases began. In fact, due to their incarceration, they are farther away, and reunification has been impossible for the past several months and will be for the foreseeable future." Due to the ages of the children, the relationship between the paternal grandmother and the parents, and the children's need for permanency, the court denied the request for a guardianship. The State filed a petition to terminate the parents' parental rights.
The termination hearing took place in June 2023. The parents were incarcerated and awaiting trial, but they appeared telephonically. The caseworker testified the mother was engaged in services and participating in video visits with the children while in jail. But the caseworker opined a guardianship was not in the best interests of the children due to their young age. She also noted M.A.'s specific "developmental needs," stating "adoption would be more permanent for him and it would best suit his needs. He would be more stable in that placement."
The juvenile court thereafter entered an order terminating the parents' parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (with respect to M.A.) and (h) (with respect to N.A.) (2023). The mother 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 child. In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521, 529 (Iowa 2019).
III. Analysis
In our review, we use a three-step analysis: first, determine if a ground for termination exists under Iowa Code section 232.116, subsection (1); next, apply the best-interest framework from subsection (2); and last, consider if any exceptions from subsection (3) apply to preclude termination. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472-73 (Iowa 2018). Because the mother does not contest the existence of the grounds for termination, we need not discuss this step. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010).
A. Best Interests
When determining best interests, we give primary weight 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 conditions and needs of the child[ren]." Iowa Code § 232.116(2). These factors all weigh in favor of termination.
In addition to the significant concerns that originally prompted department intervention in this case, the mother had prior involvement with the department with respect to unresolved drug use, which resulted in the termination of her parental rights to an older child. And the mother is currently jailed pending trial on multiple criminal charges related to another child's death. While the mother participated in services and produced negative results in drug tests, she has not taken responsibility for the circumstances relating to her child's death, and the department has been unable to assess whether her participation in services has addressed the concerns surrounding that incident. In assessing the best interests of these children, we must look at their long-range as well as immediate interests. See In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). "This requires considering what the future holds for the child[ren] if returned to the parents." Id. When making this decision, we look to the mother's past performance because it may indicate the quality of care she is capable of providing in the future. Id. Here, the children's best interests require termination.
B. Six-Month Extension
The mother requests "an extension of time for resolution of the criminal charges against her and subsequent return of the children to her care." To grant an additional six months for the mother to work toward reunification, the juvenile court must be able to "enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes which comprise the basis for the determination that the need for removal of the child[ren] from the child[ren]'s home will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period." Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). "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." In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 324 (Iowa 2021) (citation omitted). We will not ask children to wait longer for permanency on a mere hope of a parent's improvement. See id. The mother has not demonstrated the issues will be resolved at the end of six more months, especially considering that the majority of her stability has been achieved while in jail. The caseworker testified "that even prior to the incarceration . . . the children would not have been safe to be returned" to the mother's custody due to continued concerns about "how much she [knew] as to what was going on in the household leading up to [A.A.]'s death." And she further observed that even if the mother's charges were exonerated, "It's still not full permanency because the kids still sit in limbo, and there's going to be that question of what's going to happen." Under these circumstances, a six-month extension was not warranted.
C. Guardianship
The mother also requested the juvenile court establish a guardianship with the paternal grandmother as an alternative to termination at the termination hearing. Despite the wishes of a parent, "a guardianship is not a legally preferable alternative to termination," particularly when children are so young. A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 477 (citation omitted). "Furthermore, when the statutory requirements for termination are met, we may order either termination or a guardianship." In re M.H., No. 23-1164, 2023 WL 6290856, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2023) (listing cases). At the same time, "[a]n appropriate determination to terminate a parentchild relationship is not to be countermanded by the ability and willingness of a family relative to take the child." C.K., 558 N.W.2d at 174. We have already indicated it is in these children's best interests to terminate the mother's parental rights. The children are well-integrated into their grandmother's home, and the grandmother is capable of meeting their needs. Because a guardianship status lacks the permanency these children need and deserve, we affirm the juvenile court's decision.
The mother also claims "M.A. and N.A. have a bond with their mother and a right to have her in their lives in the future if she remains clean and stable." The closeness of the parent-child relationship does not preclude termination under the facts and circumstances of this case. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c); see also In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 709 (Iowa 2010) (observing "our consideration must center on whether the child[ren] will be disadvantaged by termination," not whether the parent loves the children or the existence of a parent-child bond).
We affirm the termination of the mother's parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
[*]Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2023).