In the Interest of L.L., Minor Child ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1034
Filed September 25, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF L.L.,
Minor Child,
K.K., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Thomas J. Straka,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
William A. Lansing of William A. Lansing, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anna T. Stoeffler (until withdrawal)
and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee State.
Daniel H. Swift of Swift Law Firm, Manchester, guardian ad litem for minor
child.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Danilson, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2019).
2
DANILSON, Senior Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.
The mother waived her due process claim by not citing any authority in support of
her argument. We find the State engaged in reasonable efforts to reunite the
mother with the child. The juvenile court properly denied the mother’s requests to
place the child in a guardianship and for an extension of time. We affirm the
decision of the juvenile court.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
K.K., mother, and L.L., father, are the parents of L.L., born in 2018. In June
2018, the father violated a no-contact order and came to the mother’s home. The
father accused the mother of practicing sorcery and putting an evil spirit on the
child. While the mother was feeding the child, the father grabbed the mother by
her hair and threw her down.1 The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS)
became involved with the family. Subsequently, concerns arose about the child’s
failure to thrive2 and the mother’s substance abuse with methamphetamine. On
August 16, 2018, the child was removed from the parents’ care and placed with
the maternal grandfather.
The child was adjudicated to be in need of assistance (CINA), pursuant to
Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(n) (2018). The mother tested positive for
methamphetamine in August and September and did not attend random drug tests
1
The father was arrested and charged with child endangerment, domestic abuse assault,
and violating the no-contact order.
2
Ultimately, the child was diagnosed with fluid on her kidneys and this health issue
remained unresolved at the time of termination. She was however, gaining some weight
but the contention of failure to thrive was not an issue in the termination hearing.
3
in October or November. At the dispositional hearing, held in November, the
mother requested visits with the child at her home. The juvenile court determined
visitation would occur at the discretion of DHS. In December, the mother again
tested positive for methamphetamine. She did not appear for random drug tests
in January 2019 and tested positive in February. The mother began two substance
abuse treatment programs but did not complete them. To her credit she attended
some individual therapy sessions for mental-health concerns.
On February 21, the State filed a petition seeking to terminate the parents’
rights. The mother then started a new substance-abuse treatment program, which
she was attending at the time of the termination hearing on April 23. The parents
had violated the no-contact order and were expecting another child. The mother
stated she was no longer using illegal substances but still drank alcohol and did
not feel this was a problem.
The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights under section
232.116(1)(h) and (l) (2019).3 The court found, “The parents’ volatile relationship
and disregard of the no-contact order indicates the child cannot be returned to
either parent at the present time.” The court also noted the mother’s “severe
substance-related disorder.” The court concluded DHS provided reasonable
efforts to reunite the child with the mother. The court denied the requests for an
extension of time and to place the child in a guardianship. The court determined
termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests. The
mother now appeals.
3
The father’s parental rights were also terminated. His appeal was dismissed.
4
II. Standard of Review
Our review of termination proceedings is de novo. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d
764, 773 (Iowa 2012). “‘Clear and convincing evidence’ means there are no
serious or substantial doubts as to the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn
from the evidence.” In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (citation omitted).
Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36,
40 (Iowa 2014).
III. Due Process
The mother claims she was “denied her State and federal constitutional
rights to due process by the failure to provide a transcript of [the] trial proceedings
prior to the filing of this Petition on Appeal.” The mother does not cite any authority
in support of her argument. “Failure to cite authority in support of an issue may be
deemed waiver of that issue.” Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3). Because the mother
has waived this issue, we do not address it. See Cawthorn v. Catholic Health
Initiatives Iowa Corp., 806 N.W.2d 282, 292 (Iowa 2011). We add however, this
argument has previously been rejected in In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425, 433-34,
(Iowa Ct. App. 2015).
IV. Reasonable Efforts
The mother asserts the State did not engage in reasonable efforts to reunite
her with the child because DHS did not institute a trial home placement after she
had a negative drug test in December 2018. She also states DHS did not have
sufficient knowledge of her mental-health and substance-abuse treatment.
“The State must show reasonable efforts as a part of its ultimate proof the
child cannot be safely returned to the care of a parent.” In re L.M., 904 N.W.2d
5
835, 839 (Iowa 2017). “[W]hat constitutes reasonable services varies based upon
the requirements of each individual case.” In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa
2002). “[DHS] has an obligation to make reasonable efforts toward reunification,
but a parent has an equal obligation to demand other, different, or additional
services prior to a permanency or termination hearing.” In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d
85, 91 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005).
The mother requested visits at her home and the juvenile court gave DHS
discretion as to when these visits would occur. DHS determined the at-home visits
would begin when the mother had a negative drug test. The mother never had a
negative drug test for DHS, although she had one for a different entity in December
2018. The mother also had a positive test in December 2018, did not appear for
random drug tests in January 2019, and tested positive for methamphetamine in
February. We find DHS acted reasonably in denying the mother’s request for in-
home visits, as she did not have a sustained period of sobriety. This same
reasoning applies to the assertion the child could have been returned to her care
on a trial basis.
The mother contends the DHS failed to provide reasonable efforts because
the DHS social worker’s report and testimony lacked certain information such as
the mother’s mental-health treatment. However, we do not review this testimony
in isolation but consider all of the evidence presented. We agree with the juvenile
court’s finding that DHS provided reasonable efforts by their efforts to provide,
“substance abuse treatment, the parents were offered family safety, risk, and
permanency services; family team meetings; a parent partner for mother; parents
as teachers; Keystone Early Access; mental health counseling; individual
6
supervision; random drug testing; and protective daycare.” Perhaps DHS could
have done more but these efforts are reasonable and the mother failed to attain
even one case goal.
V. Guardianship
The mother contends the juvenile court should have placed the child in a
guardianship with the maternal grandfather, rather than terminating her parental
rights. During the CINA proceedings, the maternal grandfather told DHS workers
he was not available as a long-term placement for the child. At the termination
hearing, however, he stated he would prefer not to adopt the child but would be
willing to have the child in a guardianship. The mother also raises the possibility
the paternal grandmother, who was willing to adopt the child, could serve as a
guardian instead.
On the issue of guardianship, the juvenile court found, “Given the age of
this child, he will need long-term permanency and stability.” We agree with the
court’s conclusion. The child needs permanency and a long-term placement,
which the maternal grandfather told DHS workers he was unwilling to provide.
Also, the paternal grandmother’s willingness to adopt does not mean she would
be willing to serve as a guardian. “A guardianship is not a legally preferable
alternative to termination.” In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 477 (Iowa 2018) (quoting
In re B.T. 894 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017)). We conclude it would not be
in the child’s best interests to be placed in a guardianship.
VI. Extension of Time
At the termination hearing, the mother also asked for an extension of time
to work on reunification. At the time of the termination hearing, the mother was
7
currently attending a substance-abuse treatment program. She was given the
opportunity to submit an updated report from the treatment program after the
termination hearing but the report did not give any sign of optimism.
Under section 232.117(5), the juvenile court may order an extension of time
as an alternative to terminating parental rights, citing section 232.104. A six-month
extension may be granted based on a “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.” Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). The court stated it was “unable to
make a determination that the need for removal will no longer exist after an
extension of time. As indicated above, parents have not met any of the case plan
goals.” The court also stated it did “not believe either parent has fully addressed
their substance abuse issues despite both inpatient and outpatient treatment being
attempted.”
We agree with the court’s conclusions. We determine it would not be in the
child’s best interests to further extend this case.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.