In the Interest of C.S. and T.S., Minor Child, S.S., Mother, M.S., Father ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1593
Filed January 25, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF C.S. and T.S.,
Minor child,
S.S., Mother,
Appellant,
M.S., Father
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque, Thomas J. Straka,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal from the termination of their
parental rights to their children. AFFIRMED.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Janet L. Hoffman, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellant State.
Bridget L. Goldbeck of Hughes & Trannel, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant
mother.
Dustin A. Baker of Baker Law, Dubuque, for appellant father.
Kathryn A. Duccini of Duccini Law Offices, Dubuque, guardian ad litem for
minor children.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.
2
DANILSON, Chief Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal from the termination of their
parental rights to their children, C.S. and T.S, ages five and one. The parents
each contend termination is not in the children’s best interests due to the strong
parent-child bonds and request an additional six months to seek reunification.
The parents have a history of severe and lengthy substance abuse and have
demonstrated an inability to safely care for their children. We find termination is
in the children’s best interests, the parent-child bond is not so strong as to
outweigh the need for termination, and providing six additional months will not
obviate the need for removal. We therefore affirm.
This matter arose in March 2015 because T.S. tested positive for illegal
substances at birth. C.S. also tested positive for illegal substances. After the
parents failed to comply with drug testing, the children were removed on July 23,
2015. The children were returned to the parents’ care on January 27, 2016.
However, both parents relapsed around February 2016 and began another
period of noncompliance with drug testing. A department of human services
(DHS) worker testified when the parents did provide drug tests they were often
positive for illegal substances. The children were again removed on April 13,
2016. At the time of the termination hearing held August 24, 2016, the mother
was not appearing for drug testing consistently and had not attended visitation
with the children in two months. The father was in jail waiting to be transferred to
prison for a five-year sentence.
The parents have a long history of substance abuse. The juvenile court
described their substance abuse as severe and noted the father has been
3
abusing substances for ten years and the mother for fifteen years. Their parental
rights to four other children have been terminated due to the ongoing substance-
abuse issues. A DHS assessment reported the father has sixteen and the
mother has twenty-one prior founded child-abuse assessments for denial of
critical care, presence of an illegal substance in a child, or failure to provide
proper supervision.
In a September 9, 2016 order, the juvenile court terminated each of the
parents’ parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g) and (l) (2016) as
to both children, and section 232.116(1)(h) as to T.S. Both parents appeal.
We review termination proceedings de novo. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793,
798 (Iowa 2006). “Our primary concern is the best interests of the child[ren].” Id.In considering whether parental rights should be terminated, we
(1) assess whether grounds for termination exist under section 232.116(1);
(2) determine if termination is in the children’s best interests; and (3) consider
whether any of the section 232.116(3) exceptions apply to preclude the need for
termination. In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706-07 (Iowa 2010). Because the
parents do not dispute grounds for termination exist, we need not discuss that
portion of the analysis. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010).
The mother asserts termination is not in the children’s best interests, and
both parents contend termination would be detrimental to the children due to the
strong parent-child bond. We acknowledge the parents have a bond with the
children and C.S. has struggled with being removed from the parents’ care.
However, the parents have not made strides to provide for the “long-term
nurturing and growth of the child[ren], and to [ensure] the physical, mental, and
4
emotional condition and needs of the child[ren]” are met. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2). The parents have demonstrated a pattern of receiving substance-
abuse treatment yet being unable to maintain sobriety, subjecting children in their
care to unsafe conditions. “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.’” In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 2000) (citation
omitted). It is not in the children’s best interests to remain in the parents’
custody.
Additionally, the parent-child bond is not so strong as to preclude the need
for termination. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). The children have been in four
placements during the pendency of these proceedings. The children’s current
foster family has agreed to adopt the children. The parent-child bond does not
outweigh the children’s need for permanency in a safe and stable home. Thus,
there is not clear and convincing evidence that termination would be detrimental
due to the parent-child bond of either parent. See id. § 232.116(3).
Both parents also request an additional six months to seek reunification.
See id. § 232.104(2)(b). The juvenile court denied the request for additional
time, stating due to “the father’s prison sentence and mother’s need for long-term
inpatient substance abuse treatment, the court is unable to make the
determination that the need for a removal will no longer exist at the end of an
extension.” We agree. The father is incarcerated and neither parent has
demonstrated an ability to successfully complete substance-abuse treatment
5
notwithstanding multiple attempts. We determine it is highly unlikely the children
could be safely returned in six months’ time.
We find termination is in the children’s best interests, no exception applies
to outweigh the need for termination, and granting the request for an additional
six months would not allow for reunification. We therefore affirm the juvenile
court’s termination order.
AFFIRMED.