In the Interest of V.K., C.K., and I.K., Minor Children ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1630
Filed November 27, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF V.K., C.K., and I.K.,
Minor Children,
T.G., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Brendan Greiner,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three minor
children. AFFIRMED.
Julie A. Forsyth of Forsyth Law Office, P.L.L.C., Winterset, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Shireen Carter, Clive, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.
2
MULLINS, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three children,
born in 2008, 2011, and 2014.1 She argues termination is contrary to the children’s
best interests and the court should have established a guardianship in the
children’s maternal grandparents rather than terminate her parental rights.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
This family has prior involvement with the Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS).2 The mother and children again came to the attention of DHS in
January 2018 due to the mother’s use of methamphetamine while caring for the
children, untreated mental-health issues, and homelessness. The children were
removed from the mother’s care in February, upon which they were placed with
their maternal grandparents, with whom they had already been living. The children
were adjudicated to be in need of assistance in April upon stipulation of the parties.
The same month, the mother tested positive for methamphetamine and
amphetamines. Over the next several months, the mother did not engage in
services. She was arrested several times. She continued to exhibit indicators of
drug use. She began a new relationship with a man who subjected her to domestic
violence.
The mother began engaging in mental-health therapy and substance-abuse
treatment in September, at which time she tested negative for drugs but positive
1
The children’s father’s parental rights were also terminated. He does not appeal.
2
The older two children were removed from their parents’ care as a result of domestic
violence in the home. The case was closed in 2013 upon the understanding that the
parents were no longer in a relationship. However, the youngest child was born to the
parents about eighteen months later.
3
for alcohol. The mother consistently attended substance-abuse treatment; she
tested negative for drugs from October 2018 through May 2019.
In January 2019, as a result of the mother’s engagement in substance-
abuse and mental-health treatment and clean drug screens, she was granted an
additional six months to work toward reunification. The mother tested positive for
marijuana and alcohol in May and again tested positive for alcohol in June. In July,
the maternal grandparents allowed the mother to move into the home. It became
apparent that she engaged in heavy alcohol consumption. The DHS worker
described the mother’s situation as “cross addiction”—trading her
methamphetamine abuse for alcohol abuse.
Due to the mother’s inability to demonstrate long-term sobriety, DHS
modified its permanency goal to termination. The State filed its termination
petitions in August. The level of the mother’s alcohol use continued to be a
concern at the time of the termination hearing in September. She was also
homeless at the time of the hearing. The children have remained in the home of
the maternal grandparents before and during the proceedings. The grandparents
intend to adopt upon termination. They have no interest in the establishment of a
guardianship. Ultimately, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2019). As noted, the mother appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521,
526 (Iowa 2019). Our primary consideration is the best interests of the children,
In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006), the defining elements of which are
4
the children’s safety and need for a permanent home. In re H.S., 805 N.W.2d 737,
748 (Iowa 2011).
III. Analysis
The mother does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
the statutory ground for termination cited by the juvenile court. Instead, she argues
termination is contrary to the children’s best interests and the court should have
established a guardianship in the children’s maternal grandparents rather than
terminate her parental rights.
As to the mother’s best-interests challenge, she only challenges specific
factual findings made by the juvenile court; she does not make any specific
argument as to how consideration of the statutory factors contained in Iowa Code
section 232.116(2) renders termination contrary to the children’s best interests. In
determining whether termination is in 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
condition and needs of the child.” Iowa Code § 232.116(2).
The mother has made great strides in these proceedings and we commend
her for her efforts. She has meaningfully engaged in substance-abuse and mental-
health treatment and her progress in the same showed promise. However, this
thirty-two-year-old mother has a long history of abusing illegal substances, dating
back to before she was a teenager. She has admittedly abused marijuana,
methamphetamine, cocaine, and pain killers. While she has experienced periods
of sobriety, her own testimony shows she has always reverted to a life of
intoxicated stupor. After a period of progress and a resulting extension to work
5
toward reunification, the mother began down that path again during these
proceedings, turning to marijuana and alcohol. Most troubling is the fact that the
mother engaged in excessive alcohol use when she was living with the children
and maternal grandparents. “We hold no crystal ball, and to some extent, the
[best-interests] determination must be made upon past conduct.” In re M.M., No.
16-1685, 2016 WL 7395788, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2016). Addiction is a
crippling affliction. While we hope the mother prevails in her battle with substance
abuse, “we cannot deprive a child of permanency after the State has proved a
ground for termination” upon such sentiments. See In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764,
777 (Iowa 2012). The mother has had ample time to get her substance abuse in
check; while she has made significant progress on the methamphetamine front,
she turned to alcohol abuse instead. Further, the children have been out of the
mother’s care since before they were formally removed. The record indicates the
grandparents have been the children’s primary caregivers for most of their lives.
“It is simply not in the best interests of children to continue to keep them in
temporary foster homes while the natural parents get their lives together.” Id. at
778 (quoting In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Iowa 1997)).
This is unquestionably one of those unfortunate cases in which a parent
makes commendable progress but not enough to have their children returned to
their care and matters simply reach a point at which the children’s best interests
command permanency and stability.
There are a number of stern realities faced by a juvenile judge in any
case of this kind. Among the most important is the relentless
passage of precious time. The crucial days of childhood cannot be
suspended while parents experiment with ways to face up to their
own problems. Neither will childhood await the wanderings of judicial
6
process. The child will continue to grow, either in bad or unsettled
conditions or in the improved and permanent shelter which ideally,
at least, follows the conclusion of a juvenile proceeding.
The law nevertheless demands a full measure of patience
with troubled parents who attempt to remedy a lack of parenting
skills. In view of this required patience, certain steps are prescribed
when termination of the parent-child relationship is undertaken under
Iowa Code chapter 232. But, beyond the parameters of chapter 232,
patience with parents can soon translate into intolerable hardship for
their children.
In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Iowa 1987). The children are in a relative
placement that plans to adopt. The children are integrated into this familial setting,
which, unlike the mother, has provided and can continue to provide for their
physical, mental, and emotional needs. Continued stability and permanency in this
home are in this children’s best interests. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2)(b); cf. In
re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 224–25 (2016) (concluding termination was in best
interests of children where children were well-adjusted to placement, the
placement parents were “able to provide for their physical, emotional, and financial
needs,” and they were prepared to adopt the children). While we recognize a bond
exists between the mother and children, see Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c), we find
the children’s interests are best served by termination.
The mother alternatively requests that a guardianship be established in the
maternal grandparents in lieu of termination. “[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)). Although section
232.104(2)(d) allows for the establishment of a guardianship as a permanency
option, section 232.104(3) requires “a judicial determination that [such a] planned
permanent living arrangement is the best permanency plan for the child[ren].” See
7
B.T., 894 N.W.2d at 32–33. Determining the best permanency plan for a child is
a best-interests assessment. A guardianship, rather than termination, would not
promote stability or provide permanency to the children’s lives. See In re R.S.R.,
No. 10-1858, 2011 WL 441680, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2011) (“So long as a
parent’s rights remain intact, the parent can challenge the guardianship and seek
return of the child[ren] to the parent’s custody.”). Furthermore, the record discloses
the establishment of a guardianship would impose financial hardship on the
grandparents and, by extension, the children. We conclude the establishment of
a guardianship in lieu of termination would be contrary to the children’s best
interests.
IV. Conclusion
We conclude termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s
best interests and the establishment of a guardianship in lieu of termination is
inappropriate under the circumstances of this case. We affirm the termination of
the mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.