Opinion
23-2091
03-27-2024
IN THE INTEREST OF A.O. and L.C., Minor Children, C.O., Mother, Appellant.
Alexander S. Momany of Howes Law Firm, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Kimberly Ann Opatz of Linn County Advocate, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, Judge.
A mother appeals the district court order terminating her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Alexander S. Momany of Howes Law Firm, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Kimberly Ann Opatz of Linn County Advocate, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.
SCHUMACHER, PRESIDING JUDGE
A mother appeals the district court order terminating her parental rights. We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of the mother's parental rights, termination is in the children's best interests, and none of the permissive exceptions to termination should be applied. An extension of time is unwarranted on these facts. We affirm the termination of the mother's parental rights.
I. Background Facts &Proceedings
C.O. is the mother of A.O., born in 2015, and L.C., born in 2017. J.P. is the father of A.O.; C.C. is the father of L.C. A.O. was removed from parental custody and L.C. was removed from his mother's custody in August 2022 because of concerns of methamphetamine use in the home. There were also concerns about the mother's mental health. The mother refused to cooperate with services. A.O. was placed in foster care, and L.C. was placed in the custody of his father. At the time of the removal, the children tested positive for exposure to methamphetamine, amphetamine, and marijuana.
J.P. spoke to an Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) worker in June 2022 and informed HHS he was incarcerated in Colorado. Although released and served with notice, he did not participate in the proceedings. His parental rights were terminated; he has not appealed.
The mother stipulated to the children being adjudicated as children in need of assistance (CINA). The court stated the children could not be placed with the mother "because the mother was not willing to cooperate with voluntary services to ensure the safety of the children." Also, "[the mother's] mental health appears unstable which makes continued placement of the children with her impossible."
A.O. has been diagnosed with an adjustment disorder. She has tantrums and displays aggressive and destructive behavior. She takes medication to help with her behavior and attends therapy. She needs extra attention from a caregiver to be successful. L.C. acts out after visits with his mother. He has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. He also takes medication and sees a therapist.
The mother tested positive for methamphetamine in November 2022 and marijuana in March 2023. She also tested positive for methamphetamine in June and September 2023. She was inconsistent in participating in drug testing. An HHS report stated the mother "has been observed to get erratic and escalated whenever drug testing becomes the topic of conversation." The mother participated in substance abuse evaluations, but she was dishonest about her recent drug use. The mother has been diagnosed with depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, reactive attachment disorder, and bipolar disorder.
The mother has a history of belligerent and argumentative behavior with service providers. During visits, the mother would at times become angry, combative, and dysregulated. The mother's inability to communicate in an appropriate manner resulted in the court entering an "Order for a Communication Plan" in June 2023. The mother was ordered to communicate with the HHS caseworker only by email. The mother was ordered "to be respectful in her communication with the professionals involved in these matters, both in her written communication and when she has in-person communication with the on-going service providers. She is not to yell, swear or call the professionals names." The mother was directed to consult her attorney about concerns with the case.
On July 26, the State applied for a rule to show cause, claiming the mother had violated the communication order by yelling at a service provider, and twice physically pushing the service provider. The mother stipulated that she was in contempt. The court ordered the mother to serve thirty days in jail but suspended the jail term on the condition that the mother continue to follow the communication order.
On August 17, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of the mother and A.O.'s father. At the termination hearing, the mother testified she believed the children could be safely returned to her. She also stated that if the children could not be returned that day, she wanted an extension of six months. The HHS caseworker testified the children could not be safely returned to the mother:
I believe that she would continue to expose the children to unsafe individuals. She's very impulsive, struggles to regulate her emotions and her behavior, and the kids would be exposed to that roller coaster of up and down mood swings of their mother. She would make inappropriate and poor decisions in regards to her mental health, potentially additional methamphetamine use, and then alcohol use as well.
The HHS caseworker noted the mother had positive drug tests throughout the case.
The district court terminated the mother's parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2023). The court found the mother was not a credible witness and that "clear and convincing evidence has been presented to show that the children could not be returned to the care of [the mother] at the time of trial, or any time in the reasonable future, given their need for permanency and stability." The court found termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the children. The court applied none of the exceptions in section 232.116(3). The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.
II. Standard of Review
Our review of termination proceedings is de novo. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 773 (Iowa 2012). The State must prove its allegations for termination by clear and convincing evidence. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000). "'Clear and convincing evidence' means there are no serious or substantial doubts as to the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the evidence." Id. Our primary concern is the best interests of the children. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa 2014).
In general, we follow a three-step analysis in reviewing the termination of a parent's rights. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010). First, we consider whether there is a statutory ground for termination of the parent's rights under section 232.116(1). Id. Second, we look to whether termination of the parent's rights is in the children's best interests. Id. (citing Iowa Code § 232.116(2)). Third, we consider whether any of the exceptions to termination in section 232.116(3) should be applied. Id. But when the parent does not raise a claim relating to any of the three steps, we do not address that step and instead limit our review to the specific claims presented. See id. at 40 (recognizing we do not consider a step the parent does not challenge).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The mother claims the district court should not have terminated her parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f). She does not dispute the first three elements of section 232.116(1)(f) but asserts the State did not adequately show the children could not be returned to her. The mother contends the main underlying problem was her demeanor. She states she was simply trying to advocate for her children and others took exception to her statements. She asserts her substance-abuse and mental-health concerns were not sufficient to cause termination of her parental rights.
Section 232.116(1)(f) provides for termination of parental rights if the following have occurred:
(1) The child is four years of age or older.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child's parents for at least twelve of the last eighteen months, or for the last twelve consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days.
(4) 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.
"We will uphold an order terminating parental rights where there is clear and convincing evidence of the statutory grounds for termination." In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425, 434 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). Section 232.116(1)(f)(4) requires a showing by clear and convincing evidence that a child "could not be safely returned to the custody of [the child's] parents." In re S.O., 967 N.W.2d 198, 206 (Iowa 2021). Under section 232.116(1)(f)(4), a court considers whether a child can be returned to the parent at the time of the termination hearing. In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 294 (Iowa 2021).
We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to show the children could not be safely returned to the mother at the time of the termination hearing. The mother did not recognize the problems that led to the removal and CINA adjudication of the children. She denied she had substance-abuse issues, despite the positive drug tests. She was also inconsistent in attending requested drug tests. The mother did not obtain a requested psychological evaluation. The mother pointed out that she was attending therapy. But she was not addressing her aggressive behavior. Instead, she spent her therapy sessions complaining about HHS. The mother did not cooperate with services; her behavior required a communication plan, which she promptly violated, resulting in a finding of contempt.
We conclude the mother's parental rights were properly terminated under section 232.116(1)(f).
IV. Best Interests
The mother argues that termination is not in the best interests of her children. In considering the best interests of a child, we 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 needs of the child under section 232.116(2)." P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 41. "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." Id.
The children need consistency and stability to deal with their behaviors. The district court found:
It is in these children's best interest for termination of parental rights to occur. The children need stability and sober parenting. [The mother] has not been able to demonstrate stability in her mental health during the course of this case. She is volatile and argumentative. She does not take responsibility for her own actions but chooses to focus on blaming others for her situation, rather than working on the issues of concern. [A.O.] will often excuse her own behaviors, such as stealing, by stating that "mom always steals." The professionals believe that [A.O.'s] behaviors can be changed if she receives the appropriate mental health services, but also have concerns that if [the mother] were in charge of obtaining these services, she would not follow through if she did not hear what she wanted to hear from the provider....
[L.C.] has some behaviors, and they are reported to be worse after visits with [the mother] and [A.O.] It is in his best interest to live in a sober, stable environment with his father, without the anxiety and drama of the contact from his mother.
We agree with the district court's findings on the children's best interests. We conclude it is in the children's best interests to terminate the mother's parental rights.
V. Exceptions to Termination
The mother claims the district court should have elected not to terminate her parental rights because termination would be detrimental to the children due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). She states the court did not adequately consider the trauma that termination of her parental rights will cause the children. The mother furthermore points out that L.C. is in the custody of his father, so the court should have made an exception to termination under section 232.116(3)(a).
The exceptions to termination found "in section 232.116(3) are permissive, not mandatory." In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 324 (Iowa 2021) (citation omitted). "The court may exercise its discretion in deciding whether to apply the factors in section 232.116(3) to save the parent-child relationship based on the unique circumstances of each case and the best interests of the children." In re A.R., 932 N.W.2d 588, 591 (Iowa Ct. App. 2019). "[O]nce the State has proven a ground for termination, the parent resisting termination bears the burden to establish an exception to termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(3) ...." In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018). The children's best interests remain our first consideration. Id. at 475.
On this issue, the district court found:
The Court has considered the trauma that termination of parental rights will cause the children and finds that it is outweighed by the children's immediate need for permanency. Both children share a bond with their mother, but their need for stability and a sober environment outweighs any detriment of severing this bond.
And while L.C. is in the custody of his father, he regresses after contact with his mother. It is not in L.C.'s best interest to continue contact with his mother, despite being in the custody of his father.
We, like the district court, conclude that the exceptions to termination contained in sections 232.116(3)(a) and (c) should not be applied. The mother has not met her burden to show either exception to termination should be applied to preclude termination. See id. at 476.
VI. Extension of Time
At the termination hearing and on appeal, the mother asks for an extension of time to work on reunification with the children. She requests six months "to provide [her] additional opportunities to engage in efforts, specifically engaging in efforts to clarify the misconceptions evident in this case."
A six-month extension of time may be granted under sections 232.104(2)(b) and 232.117(5) if parental rights are not terminated following a termination hearing. In re D.P., No. 21-0884, 2021 WL 3891722, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 1, 2021). An extension of time may be granted if the court "determines] 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." In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 92 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005) (quoting Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b)). "The judge considering [the extension] should however constantly bear in mind that, if the plan fails, all extended time must be subtracted from an already shortened life for the children in a better home." Id. (citation omitted). And to grant an additional six months, the court must identify "specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes" that provide a basis for determining "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." In re S.H.-M., No. 23-1706, 2023 WL 8806153, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2023).
We determine an extension of time is unwarranted on these facts. The mother did not cooperate with the services provided to her during this case and instead focused on what she believed were wrongs committed against her by HHS. Her request for an extension of time does not focus on achieving sobriety or improving her mental health, instead the mother asks for more time to "clarify the misconceptions evident in this case." A request for an extension of time should be denied if there is no expectation that matters will be improved at the end of the additional six-month period. See id. We, like the district court, cannot identify specific factors, conditions, or behavioral changes that would provide a basis for determining "that the need for removal of the child from the child's home will no longer exist at the end of the [requested extension]." See id.
We affirm the decision of the district court.
AFFIRMED.