Opinion
23-2058
03-27-2024
IN THE INTEREST OF J.W., Minor Child, D.C., Mother, Appellant.
Felicia M. Bertin Rocha of Bertin Rocha Law, P.C., Urbandale, for appellant mother. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Lisa Jeanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Chira L. Corwin of Corwin Law Firm, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Felicia M. Bertin Rocha of Bertin Rocha Law, P.C., Urbandale, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Lisa Jeanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Chira L. Corwin of Corwin Law Firm, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.
BOWER, CHIEF JUDGE
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, born in 2022. Because termination is in the best interests of the child, and additional time or application of a permissive exception are not warranted, we affirm.
The father's parental rights were also terminated; he does not appeal.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
This family has prior involvement with the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (department). The mother's parental rights to her other two young children were terminated in 2020 and 2022 due to "unresolved substance abuse and mental health issues, unresolved domestic violence issues, [and] lack of stable housing." The mother has a history of methamphetamine use. This case came to the attention of the department at the time of the child's birth in November 2022, when the mother and child tested positive for illegal substances. The child was removed from the mother's custody, placed with the same caregiver who adopted his older full sibling, and adjudicated in need of assistance.
Over the ensuing months, the mother failed to meaningfully engage in recommended services. She was inconsistent in attending visits with the child, and she failed to maintain contact with the department. Eventually, her visits were "stopped completely." The State initiated termination-of-parental-rights proceedings in August 2023. The termination hearing took place in September. The mother did not attend the hearing. The father was incarcerated but appeared virtually. The mother and father continued to be "in an unhealthy relationship dynamic." The caseworker testified she took over the case at the beginning of June, and she had "never met" the mother. The caseworker explained she "lost track" of how many meetings she had attempted to set up. The mother's attorney stated the mother contested termination but presented "no independent evidence" to support her position. The department and guardian ad litem opined termination of the mother's parental rights would be in the best interests of the child.
The court thereafter entered an order terminating the mother's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (e), (g), (h), and (l) (2023). The mother appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We review termination-of-parental-rights proceedings de novo. In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280, 293 (Iowa 2021). Upon our review, our primary consideration is the best interests of the child, In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006), the defining elements of which are the child's safety and need for a permanent home. In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737, 748 (Iowa 2011).
III. Analysis
A. Grounds for Termination.
The mother does not contest the existence of the grounds for termination, so we need not discuss this step. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010).
B. Best Interests.
When determining best interests, we give primary weight 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 conditions and needs of the child." Iowa Code § 232.116(2). Here, these factors all weigh in favor of termination. We agree with the juvenile court's analysis on this point:
Children need a long-term commitment from a parent to be appropriately nurturing, supportive of their growth and development, and who can meet their physical, mental, emotional and safety needs. No parent has demonstrated they are willing or able to fulfill this parental role. Neither parent has had contact with the child since June of 2023. The parents['] lack of meaningful participation in services show an inability or unwillingness to make necessary changes to have the child placed in their care. While Father briefly engaged in services, he was unable to demonstrate the ability to maintain sobriety, address domestic violence issues or his own trauma.... Mother continued to reside with her mother and grandparents, a home she knew to have active drug use by her own mother. Mother never meaningfully engaged in substance abuse or mental health services. Parents have been offered services to address these issues for years.... [W]hen a parent is incapable of changing to allow the child to return home, termination is necessary.
C. Exceptions to Termination.
The mother claims the "close bond between herself and her child" should preclude termination. See id. § 232.116(3)(c) (providing the court "need not terminate the relationship" if "[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that the termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship").
Although the mother may be bonded to the child, the fact is the two have had very little contact. The child was removed shortly after his birth. Since then, due to the mother's "lack of consistency and follow-through," her visits were reduced to twice-weekly, then once-weekly, and then "stopped completely due to the parents' lack of communication with service providers and [because] their whereabouts [were] unknown." According to the caseworker, the mother's lack of engagement in visitation "significantly impacts the awareness/closeness [the child] has with [her]." Meanwhile, the child has bonded with his caregiver, who has "safely met his needs." "These factors weigh against finding that the parent-child relationship precludes termination." In re J.S., No. 23-1396, 2023 WL 7391831, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2023). We agree with the juvenile court's determination:
The parents have failed to present evidence to establish an exception to termination exists.
The child is currently placed with a family that meets the criteria of a long-term, nurturing home, and should not have to wait any longer for a permanent home. Child's current home is the adoptive home of his full-sibling, . . . and allows for this meaningful sibling relationship to be maintained.... After considering the child's very young age, his placement in the same home since his birth, his need for permanency, and the diminished attachment given the parents' lack of consistent contact, the court finds termination is in the child's best interest.
The mother has not established termination of her rights will be detrimental to the child.
D. Additional Time.
The mother requests a six-month extension "for her to work on the return of J.W. to her care." The mother claims she was previously unable to "focus on the reunification with J.W., as she wanted to, but could not" because she was providing care for her terminally ill grandmother. To grant an extension of time for reunification, the court must "enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes" providing a basis to determine the child will be able to return to the parent at the end of the additional six months.
Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). Here, the court observed:
[I]n February of 2023, Mother was diagnosed with Stimulant Use Disorder, Amphetamine-type, Severe; Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe; and Cannabis Use Disorder, Severe. The substance abuse evaluator recommended Mother participate in extended outpatient treatment and started treatment on February 21, 2023. Mother was reluctant to sign releases for [the department] to obtain updates. Mother was to attend four to five group sessions each week and elected to participate remotely. It was reported she seemed to listen but did not always appear on the screen. She did not participate in individual sessions which were to occur at least every other week. The prior [case]worker made repeated attempts to obtain updates
following the dispositional hearing but was never able to do so. Mother missed at least [thirteen] requested drug screens throughout the [child in need of assistance (CINA)] case, which are all considered positive. Mother's unresolved substance abuse caused this child and [an older child] to test positive for illegal substances at the time of their birth. A review [of] Mother's prior CINA cases for [her older children] show a long history of recommendations for treatment, including residential treatment. Despite Mother being offered substance abuse treatment since 2019, through three separate CINA cases, Mother has never successfully completed any substance abuse treatment program.
Indeed, in the June 2020 order terminating the mother's parental rights for the first time, the juvenile court found the mother's "pattern of behavior throughout the underlying case" demonstrated a "fail[ure] to meaningfully engage in any of the recommended services, despite repeated encouragement by [caseworkers and providers] to engage in substance abuse and mental health services." "We look to the past for indicators of what is likely to occur in the future." In re M.P., No. 19-0995, 2019 WL 5063337, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2019). Here, the guardian ad litem opined, "As we sit here today, Mom has not shown up .... Sadly, this has kind of been how this case has gone from the beginning." The guardian ad litem further observed the mother's lack "of progress moving forward" to get "to a place where [she] can parent" the child mirrored her "previous" cases. On this record, the court had no basis on which to grant an extension.
We affirm the termination of the mother's parental rights.
AFFIRMED.