In the Interest of M.R., Minor Child ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-0498
Filed June 5, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF M.R.,
Minor Child,
M.R., Father,
Appellant,
A.R.. Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Brendan Greiner,
District Associate Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the order terminating their parental
rights. AFFIRMED.
Jeremy M. Evans of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant father.
Tara M. Elcock of Elcock Law Firm PLC, Indianola, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Yvonne C. Naanep, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
child.
Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
A mother and father separately appeal the juvenile court decision
terminating their parental rights. They independently claim the evidence was
insufficient to support termination, the court should have granted additional time
for them to resolve their issues, and exceptions to termination apply. We find
sufficient evidence supports the termination, additional time is not warranted, and
no exceptions preclude termination. We affirm.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
M.R., father, and A.R., mother, are the parents of M.R., born in 2013. On
December 30, 2017, the parents were arrested for shoplifting; M.R. was with them.
Law enforcement found drug paraphernalia on both parents, and the parents
admitted to regularly using heroin and prescription drugs while the child was in the
home. The child was placed with the maternal grandparents, and on January 2,
2018, the parents consented to the child’s removal and placement with the
grandparents. On February 14, the child was adjudicated in need of assistance
(CINA). After a dispositional hearing in March, the court ordered both parents to
address their substance-abuse and mental-health issues.
The father, who is thirty-two years of age, has a long history with drugs,
including marijuana and prescription opioids since he was a teenager; after a sober
period, in 2012 he began taking pain pills again, progressing to heroin use in 2016.
He began using methamphetamine in mid-2017. The father attended inpatient
treatment in February 2018. He started family treatment court in February, but at
the end of March tested positive for multiple opioids and methamphetamine. At
the end of April, the father pleaded guilty to a drug offense dating from September
3
2017, and the court sentenced him to fifteen years in prison. He had no visits with
the child while incarcerated, but he did call every week to talk with the child. The
father paroled out of prison in January 2019. After his release from prison, he
admitted a single use of methamphetamine approximately two weeks prior to the
termination hearing.
The mother started taking prescription opioids following a back injury, using
more over time and turning to heroin in 2016. Following the removal, she started
family treatment court in February and continued with the court through relapses
and various treatment programs. In October, she failed to attend her court dates
and was suspended from the family treatment program. The mother was
inconsistent in complying with testing and occasionally tested positive for opioids
or methamphetamine. The mother testified to regularly using methamphetamine
for the majority of the case. Throughout the case, she started multiple inpatient
and outpatient treatment programs but did not complete them. The mother was
inconsistent in attending visitation and would sometimes appear to be under the
influence of drugs. She did not call the child to talk on days without visits. The
mother had been in treatment for just over two weeks at the time of the termination
hearing, with her last admitted drug use earlier in the month.
On December 28, 2018, the State filed a petition to terminate the rights of
both parents. A trial was held on February 25, 2019. The court heard testimony
from the mother, the father, the family services worker, the social worker, and the
maternal grandmother. The parents were both sober the day of the termination
hearing. On March 13, 2019, the court terminated each parent’s rights pursuant
to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (l) (2018). Both parents appeal.
4
II. Standard of Review
We review termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo. In re A.B., 815
N.W.2d 764, 773 (Iowa 2012). “There must be clear and convincing evidence of
the grounds for termination of parental rights.” In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219
(Iowa 2016). 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 L.H., 904 N.W.2d 145, 149 (Iowa 2017) (citation omitted). The
paramount concern in termination proceedings is the best interest of the child. In
re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006).
III. Analysis
The parents independently claim insufficient evidence supports the
termination of their parental rights, the court should have granted them additional
time to resolve the problems causing the removal, and exceptions apply negating
the need to terminate their parental rights.
A. Sufficiency of the evidence. Each parent claims insufficient
evidence supported the termination of their parental rights under both Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(f) and (l). Where the juvenile court has terminated a parent’s
rights on multiple grounds, “we need only find termination appropriate under one
of these sections to affirm.” In re J.B.L., 844 N.W.2d 703, 704 (Iowa Ct. App.
2014).
We will address the termination of parental rights for each parent under
section 232.116(1)(f). Neither parent contests the first three elements: the child is
over four years of age, has been adjudicated CINA, and has been removed from
the parents’ physical custody for more than twelve months. Iowa Code
5
§ 232.116(1)(f)(1)-(3). Each parent claims the State failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that the child could not have been returned to his or her
custody at the time of the termination hearing. See id. § 232.116(1)(f)(4).
At the time of the termination hearing, the father had been sober for less
than two weeks, having relapsed on methamphetamine shortly after his release
from prison. While the father had a stable home with his parents, he had not yet
begun substance-abuse or mental-health treatment. In the year since the removal,
the father made very little progress in addressing his problems contributing to the
child being adjudicated CINA. The father was not in a position for the child to be
returned to his care at the time of the termination hearing.
At the time of the termination hearing, the mother had been sober for a little
more than two weeks. The majority of her sober period was spent in a controlled
inpatient environment, and she was moving to outpatient treatment the next day.
The completion of the first step in her substance-abuse treatment is a good first
step, but we note she did not choose to pursue treatment until after the termination
petition had been filed. Over the past year she was in a cycle of starting treatment
and then relapsing into a regular methamphetamine habit. Even the mother
testified she was not ready for the child to be returned at the time of trial.
We conclude there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to show
the child could not be safely returned to the care of either parent at the time of trial.
We determine the juvenile court properly terminated each parent’s rights under
section 232.116(1)(f).
B. Additional time. The mother claims the court should have granted
her additional time under Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b) to resolve her problems
6
prior to termination. The father also claims the court should have ordered
additional time to resolve his issues before resorting to termination of his rights.
In order for the court to order a six-month continuation of the child’s
placement, it must “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.” Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). The court found it
unlikely the parents could resolve the concerns within six months.
After more than a year of services and uncertainty for the child, each parent
claims to be in the early stages of addressing the issues that led to the removal of
the child. The mother claims this time her treatment is different because it is her
choice to go to treatment. The father claims his time in prison made him
understand the changes he needs to make in his life and motivated him to stay out
of jail. We cannot deprive a child of permanency by hoping someday the parents
will learn to be parents and provide a safe and stable home for the child. In re P.L.,
778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). We must “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).
We cannot find the need for removal will no longer exist at the end of six
months as to either parent. We conclude the grandparents’ home is the best
placement to provide stability and for the child’s long-term growth. Termination of
the parents’ rights is in the best interest of the child.
7
C. Exceptions. Finally, both parents claim the court did not need to
terminate their parental rights because the child is in the legal custody of the
maternal grandparents and termination would be detrimental to the child due to
their close bonds with the child. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(a), (c). The court
found “no clear and convincing evidence presented” showed an exception should
apply to stop the termination.
The exceptions to termination of parental rights found under section
232.116(3) are permissive, not mandatory. In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 45 (Iowa
2018). It is within the court’s discretion to consider the circumstances of the case
and the best interest of the child in determining whether to apply the factors. In re
A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 113 (Iowa 2014). We recognize the parents are bonded to
the child. However, the adoptive family is the maternal grandparents, and they
have indicated the parents may be around the child if they are clean and sober.
Termination and adoption in this case provides stability to the child while allowing
the parents a way to maintain their bonds with the child. We find application of the
exceptions to termination under section 232.116(3) do not render termination
improper in this case.
AFFIRMED.