In the Interest of E.C., L.C., and N.C., Minor Children, R.C., Mother ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 16-1791
    Filed December 21, 2016
    IN THE INTEREST OF E.C., L.C., and N.C.,
    Minor Children,
    R.C., Mother,
    Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Angela L. Doyle,
    District Associate Judge.
    A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
    Derek J. Johnson of Johnson & Bonzer, P.L.C., Fort Dodge, for appellant
    mother.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
    Attorney General, for appellee State.
    Sarah J. Livingston of Thatcher, Tofilon & Livingston, P.L.C., Fort Dodge,
    for minor children.
    Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.
    2
    DANILSON, Chief Judge.
    A mother1 appeals the termination of her parental rights pursuant to Iowa
    Code section 232.116(1)(b), (e), (f), (h) and (l) (2015). We review termination of
    parental rights proceedings de novo. In re A.M., 
    843 N.W.2d 100
    , 110 (Iowa
    2014).
    The mother does not challenge that grounds for termination exist, 2 but
    does assert the court should have allowed her an additional six months to seek
    reunification with her children. She also argues termination of her parental rights
    was not in the children’s best interests.
    The mother has three children: E.C., born September 2013; N.C., born
    September 2010; and L.C., born May 2009. The department of human services
    (DHS) was first involved in this family’s life in May 2011 after it was alleged that
    both parents used methamphetamine while caring for L.C. and N.C. The same
    problems re-surfaced four years later in May 2015, when the parents were again
    using methamphetamine. The hair stat drug tests performed on the children on
    May 26, 2015, were positive for methamphetamine.
    The children were removed from the physical custody of their parents on
    May 26, 2015, and were adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA) on
    July 30, 2015. The concerns identified at that time were related to the parents’
    substance abuse, mental-health issues, and domestic abuse.              The children
    remained out of the parents’ custody after May 2015. There were no trial periods
    at home.
    1
    The father’s rights were also terminated. He does not appeal.
    2
    When a parent does not dispute the grounds for termination of parental rights, we need
    not discuss the issue. See In re P.L., 
    778 N.W.2d 33
    , 40 (Iowa 2010).
    3
    Both parents continued to relapse and use illegal substances during the
    pendency of the underlying CINA proceedings. The mother admitted substance
    use on May 14, July 10, July 20, and December 17, 2015, and in January and
    February 2016.      She then left the state of Iowa and her whereabouts were
    unknown for some time. She had gone to New Mexico. In May 2016, the mother
    sought telephone contact with her children but L.C.’s therapist would not support
    the contact. The mother returned to Iowa in July 2016. She had a supervised
    visit with L.C. on August 4. The DHS social worker testified about this visit at the
    termination trial, stating:
    Yes, I staffed this with [L.C.]'s therapist and the GAL
    [guardian ad litem] in regards to initiating contact between the girls
    and [the mother]. We were starting out with [L.C.], because [L.C.]
    seems to be the one that struggles the most mental health wise and
    so we did do a visit, it did go very well. [L.C., then age seven] did
    struggle after the interaction. She went back to baby talk, she was
    crawling around like a baby. Her behaviors were so bad that her
    caretaker had to call her therapist on the weekend to ask what to
    do, because of [L.C.]’s behavior, it was just not like [L.C.] and she
    was worried that [L.C.] was having a mental breakdown at the time.
    The child’s therapist recommended no further contact with the mother until she
    had adequately dealt with her long-standing substance-abuse issues. The only
    contact the DHS worker had with the mother after that visit was by email.
    The termination-of-parental-rights trial was held on September 7, 2016.
    The    mother was not present for the trial. The mother’s attorney reported the
    mother was living at a shelter in another county and was not able to get
    transportation. Counsel reported the mother was working through a temporary
    employment agency and also had a work conflict.            The mother’s attorney
    requested an additional six months to work toward reunification because the
    4
    mother was currently homeless and she needed to get substance-abuse
    treatment initiated again.
    The DHS worker recommended termination of the mother’s parental rights
    and reported the children were doing very well in their placements. L.C. was with
    an aunt. The other two children were with a grandmother. The children were
    bonded with their caretakers, who were willing to adopt the children. The worker
    testified, “I believe the girls should not have to wait for their parents to get their
    lives together, the girls have waited long enough. The girls need a safe and
    stable environment to grow up in and I believe that should happen as soon as
    possible for them.” The GAL agreed, also recommending termination of parental
    rights to provide the children with stability.
    The juvenile court denied the mother’s request for additional time, finding
    “[t]here is nothing in the extended history of this case that allows the court to
    conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that real change will occur that will
    eliminate the need for removal over the next six months.” The court concluded
    termination of parental rights would best provide the children the security and
    stability they needed.
    On our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court that no extension
    of time is warranted.     In August 2015, the mother had entered a residential
    treatment program. In September, she was participating in Family Treatment
    Court (FTC) and substance abuse treatment. Unfortunately, she chose to leave
    the program to move in with the father and began missing substance abuse
    treatment in November and December. On January 5, 2016, the mother went to
    5
    detox, stating she was using methamphetamine on a daily basis and alcohol on
    the weekends. The mother reported the father relapsed as well. The mother left
    inpatient treatment against staff recommendations on January 12. On January
    21, the mother obtained another substance-abuse evaluation, but on January 29,
    she was discharged from FTC for failure to follow through with substance-abuse
    treatment, attend FTC, and maintain contact with the Family Safety, Risk, and
    Permanency provider.       She then left the state and was not participating in
    services.
    The mother remains unable to provide a safe and stable home to the
    children after more than fifteen months of the children being removed from her
    care. She was homeless at the time of the termination hearing. And while she
    reported attending substance-abuse meetings, she had not successfully
    completed substance-abuse treatment.           Though we encourage the mother to
    continue seeking treatment, her past conduct does not bode well for future
    change. See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b) (stating an order granting additional
    time requires that the court “enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or
    expected behavioral changes which comprise the basis for the determination 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”); see also In re C.B., 
    611 N.W.2d 489
    ,
    495 (Iowa 2000) (“Insight for the determination of the child’s long-range best
    interests can be gleaned from ‘evidence of the parent’s past performance for that
    performance may be indicative of the quality of the future care that parent is
    capable of providing.’” (citation omitted)).
    6
    “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.” 
    A.M., 843 N.W.2d at 112
    (citation omitted). The children are
    in good and stable placements where they are doing well. See In re D.W., 
    791 N.W.2d 703
    , 709 (Iowa 2010) (noting a child’s pre-adoptive placement as a factor
    supporting termination under section 232.116(2)). Giving “primary consideration
    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
    condition and needs of the child[ren],” we conclude termination of parental rights
    and permanency is in the children’s best interest. Iowa Code § 232.116(2). We
    therefore affirm.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-1791

Filed Date: 12/21/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021