Opinion
23-1700
02-21-2024
IN THE INTEREST OF J.M., Minor Child, C.F., Mother, Appellant.
Jesse A. Macro, Jr. of Macro Law, LLP, Des Moines, for appellant mother. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Natalie Hedberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Erin Elizabeth Romar, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.
Jesse A. Macro, Jr. of Macro Law, LLP, Des Moines, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Natalie Hedberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Erin Elizabeth Romar, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Mullins, S.J.
SCHUMACHER, PRESIDING JUDGE.
An adoptive mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of the adoptive mother's parental rights. And termination of her parental rights is in the best interests of the child. We affirm the decision of the district court.
I. Background Facts &Proceedings
J.M., the child at interest, was born in 2017. He is six years old, and this is the second termination-of-parental-rights proceeding concerning J.M. The parental rights of the child's biological mother and father were terminated in 2019 based on substance-abuse and mental-health concerns. The child was adopted in 2021 by C.F., who was the paramour of the child's maternal grandfather, P.M.
In 2022, while C.F. was ill with lupus, she permitted the biological mother and the grandfather to care for the child, although they were actively using methamphetamine. Also, the biological father threatened the biological mother with a loaded shotgun in the presence of the child. The child was removed from C.F.'s custody on June 9, and placed in foster care. A hair test of the child at the time of removal was positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines.
There were concerns C.F. was allowing the child to be back in the same situation that led to the termination of the parental rights of the biological parents and was not protecting the child. The court noted, "It did not seem that [the child] had a close bond or relationship with the adopted mother," and he had been spending a substantial amount of time with the biological mother. The child was adjudicated to be in need of assistance.
C.F. remained in a romantic relationship with the grandfather, despite his substance-abuse and mental-health problems. The grandfather was on probation on charges of assault with a weapon, operating while intoxicated, and possession of marijuana. C.F. stated she needed the grandfather's assistance during times when her lupus flared up. She stated she would be unable to care for the child alone. C.F. told a social worker she would prefer to be the child's grandmother and let the biological mother parent the child. C.F. began to attend Al-Anon and individual therapy.
In February 2023, the child was hospitalized for mental-health concerns. He threatened a younger child and had out-of-control behavior. The child was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and possible reactive attachment disorder. The child was prescribed several medications. A doctor recommended that the child be placed in a therapeutic foster home without additional children. The child was placed in a new foster home, where he was doing well. He participated in therapy.
On June 7, 2023, the State filed a petition seeking termination of C.F.'s parental rights. At the termination hearing, C.F. testified she believed the biological mother made significant progress so she had the biological mother provide care for the child while C.F. was at work. C.F. stated she had not separated from the grandfather because he was supportive and helped her during bouts of lupus. She acknowledged the grandfather had a temper, but stated it was because of the situation with the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services. C.F. again asserted that she could not care for the child alone when she was having health problems.
The court terminated C.F.'s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2023). The court found termination of C.F.'s parental rights was in the child's best interests, stating C.F. showed "she is unable and/or unwilling to safely parent the child." The court declined to apply any of the permissive exceptions to termination. The court also denied C.F.'s request for an extension of time, stating, "There is no indication she will make any changes, at any time." C.F. 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 child. 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 child'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 them 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
C.F. claims the State did not present clear and convincing evidence to support termination of her parental rights. C.F.'s parental rights were terminated under section 232.116(1)(f), which provides for termination 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).
C.F. claims the child could be immediately returned to her. She asserts that she "only needs the assistance of others for short periods of time to aid her in the care of her son, J.M., when her lupus flairs up." She states the court fixated on the grandfather's flaws, instead of viewing him "as a possible resource and helper in this case."
C.F. continues to live with the grandfather and allows him to care for the child. The grandfather has a history of substance-abuse and mental-health concerns, as well as criminal problems. The grandfather did not participate in services and did not provide drug tests. C.F. is unable to protect the child in this environment because she does not think the grandfather presents any danger to the child. And she allowed the biological parents, who had not addressed their substance abuse issues, access to the child. The child cannot be safely returned to C.F.'s custody at the time of the termination hearing. We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of C.F.'s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f).
IV. Best Interests
C.F. contends termination of her parental rights is not in the child's best interests. She asserts that it would be in the child's best interests for her to remain in his life, as well as his biological family. She claims the child's behavior is better when he has contact with her and his biological mother.
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 district court stated:
The Court believes that facts prove [the child's] behavior became violent and escalated, while visits with the adopted mother were occurring. The Court believes the visits were a trauma trigger for [the child] and resulted in his violence. After being hospitalized and stabilized in a therapeutic foster home-with specialized therapy for bonding with care providers-[the child] made progress and has stabilized. The Court further notes [the child] has not asked for the adopted mother or [grandfather], since visits with the adopted mother ceased.
We find termination of C.F.'s parental rights is in the child's best interests.
She does not recognize the concerns that led to the termination of parental rights of the biological parents. She also does not recognize how her own conduct contributed to the child's trauma. C.F. remains unable to address the child's special needs. J.M. needs stability and permanency that C.F. is unable to provide.
We affirm the decision of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2024).