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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1316
Filed December 18, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF B.B.,
Minor Child,
D.C., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to one of her
children. AFFIRMED.
Aaron H. Ginkens of Ginkens Law Firm, P.L.C., West Des Moines, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Meredith L. Lamberti, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Karl Wolle of Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, attorney and guardian
ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to one of her
children, born in 2018.1 She contends the State failed to prove the grounds for
termination cited by the district court, termination was not in the child’s best
interests, and the court should have declined to terminate her parental rights based
on the parent-child bond.
The district court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to several
statutory provisions, including Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2019), which
requires proof of several elements, including proof the child could not be returned
to the mother’s custody. With respect to this ground, the court stated,
In the last four years, the mother has been unwilling and/or unable
to respond to services. She has been repeatedly dishonest
re[garding] dangerous relationships with violent men, mental-health
problems, substance-abuse problems and lack of stability. Any
progress has been short-lived and not sustained. The court believes
the mother is in a worse position today to care for children, than she
was four years ago. This is based upon her repeated choices to be
dishonest and not meaningfully participate in services.
We may affirm if we find clear and convincing evidence to support the court’s
findings on this ground. See In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010) (“On
appeal, we may affirm the juvenile court’s termination order on any ground that we
find supported by clear and convincing evidence.”).
As the district court stated, the mother has a long history with the
department of human services. This court recounted that history in a prior opinion
affirming the termination of the mother’s parental rights to her oldest child. See In
1
The mother’s parental rights to an older child were terminated in a separate
proceeding, and the mother’s rights to her youngest child are not at issue in this
proceeding.
3
re W.B., No. 18-0614, 2018 WL 3650363, at *1–2. (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2018).
The same circumstances leading to termination in that case surfaced in this
proceeding. Specifically, the child in this case was removed from the mother’s
custody two days after his birth based on the mother’s failure to treat her mental
illnesses and her failure to sever her relationship with the abusive father of the
child. The district court subsequently adjudicated the child in need of assistance.
For the first five months after the child’s removal, the mother regularly
attended therapy sessions to address her co-dependent relationship with the
child’s father. She tested negative for drugs and participated in supervised and
semi-supervised visits with the child. In light of her progress, the district court
granted her a six-month extension of time to facilitate reunification. The court
admonished the mother to cease contact with the child’s father.
Three months after receiving the extension, the mother gave birth to another
child, later found to have been fathered by the same man. A drug patch removed
from the mother at the time of the child’s birth was positive for methamphetamine.
A second patch removed one month later also was positive for methamphetamine
as well as cocaine. According to the department case manager, the mother
conceded the father spent time in her apartment, used methamphetamine in the
apartment, and assaulted her. The case manager recommended termination of
the mother’s parental rights based on her “mental health,” her positive tests for
methamphetamine and cocaine, and her continued relationship with the drug-
using father who, in her words, was “inappropriate, violent, and not good for her
mental health.”
4
The mother did not appear at the termination hearing, leaving the State’s
evidence essentially undisputed. That evidence supports the court’s determination
that the child could not be returned to the mother’s custody at the time of the
termination hearing.
Termination was also in the child’s best interests. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2). As the district court found, the mother was no closer to acquiring
the skills to safely parent her children notwithstanding four years of reunification
services.
Finally, there was scant evidence to support the mother’s assertion that the
district court should have declined to terminate her parental rights based on the
parent-child bond. See id. § 232.116(3)(c). As noted, the child was removed from
her care two days after his birth. See In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 225 (Iowa
2016) (noting child was outside mother’s care for almost two years). Although the
department afforded her thrice-weekly visits, the mother declined to fully engage
with the child before the termination hearing in order to insulate herself from the
trauma of the anticipated termination. While her reaction may have been
understandable, the effect was to weaken the already tenuous bond with her child.
We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to the child.
AFFIRMED.