In the Interest of C.R. ( 2021 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-1046
Filed October 20, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF C.R.,
Minor Child,
A.T., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary L. Timko,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child,
challenging only the statutory grounds for termination. AFFIRMED.
John S. Moeller of John S. Moeller, P.C., Sioux City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Meredith L. Lamberti, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Joseph Kertels of Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, attorney and guardian
ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.
2
BADDING, Judge.
As the juvenile court observed in its termination ruling, “[i]t is particularly sad
when the court has to make a decision that a parent is beyond help when it comes
to learning how to be a safe parent.” Despite years of services, that is the case
when it comes to Ashley, the mother of one-year-old C.R. We accordingly affirm
the termination of her parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h)
(2021).
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) has been involved with
Ashley and her four children for the past six years. A total of ten child-abuse
assessments have been completed. Although many reports were not confirmed,
community care services were usually recommended. Most of the assessments
concerned Ashley’s failure to provide adequate medical care for her children,
which sometimes led to their hospitalization. Bed bugs, head lice, and hygiene
were a continual problem for the family. As the children aged, they began to show
significant developmental and social delays, remaining mostly non-verbal past the
stage when they should have been speaking.
DHS implemented voluntary services in October 2019. Yet concerns for the
children’s health and safety remained. The three oldest children were removed
from Ashley’s care and placed into foster care together in early 2020. Ashley was
pregnant with C.R. and homeless at the time. She believed C.R.’s father was a
man named Jack, but paternity testing later showed that was not the case.
Ashley and Jack, who is not a father to any of her children, have been in an
off-and-on relationship for several years. Jack has a long history of substance
3
abuse and criminal activity, including domestic violence. He has been diagnosed
with depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. During the case, he
tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, hydrocodone, oxycodone,
and THC metabolite. He refused to participate in substance-abuse
treatment. Ashley continued her relationship with Jack, despite being warned that
it could lead to termination of her parental rights.
In September 2020, Ashley gave birth to C.R. To allow C.R. to remain in
her care, she signed a safety plan with DHS agreeing that Jack could neither be
alone with C.R. nor visit her apartment, and she could not visit his. It was not long
before she violated the plan. By early November, workers assigned to her case
began to suspect that she was spending time at Jack’s apartment again. Ashley
admitted that was true. Given her noncompliance, the juvenile court removed C.R.
from Ashley’s care and placed him in foster care with his half-siblings. From then
on, Ashley’s visits never progressed beyond fully supervised.
The court terminated Ashley’s parental rights to the three oldest children in
April 2021 and returned custody to their fathers.1 C.R. remained in foster care.
Three months later, the court terminated Ashley’s parental rights to C.R. under
Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d) and (h).2 Ashley appeals.
1 We summarily affirmed the termination of Ashley’s parental rights to these three
children in In re A.T., No. 21-0720, 2021 WL 3378851, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug.
4, 2021).
2 Ashley’s husband, as the legally established father of C.R., consented to the
termination of his parental rights. And C.R.’s biological father’s rights were
terminated pursuant to section 232.116(1)(b), (d), and (h). Neither has appealed.
4
II. Analysis
Our review of termination proceedings is de novo. In re Z.P., 948 N.W.2d
518, 522 (Iowa 2020). An order terminating parental rights will be upheld if there
is clear and convincing evidence of the statutory grounds for termination. Id. at
523. We use a three-step analysis to review the termination of a parent’s rights,
which begins with whether the grounds for termination have been established. In
re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472-73 (Iowa 2018).
Ashley challenges just this first step, claiming the State failed to prove
termination was appropriate under section 232.116(1)(d) and (h). See In re J.P.,
No. 19-1633, 2020 WL 110425, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020) (stating if a
parent does not challenge a step in the analysis, we need not address it). We
choose to focus on paragraph (h). In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010)
(noting termination may be affirmed on any ground supported by clear and
convincing evidence). Ashley contests the fourth element—whether C.R. could be
returned to her care at the present time. See id. (interpreting “present time” to
mean “the time of the termination hearing”). She argues because she now has a
home, is addressing her mental-health issues, and is no longer in a relationship
with Jack, C.R. could be returned to her care. We disagree.
Although she was homeless when her three oldest children were removed
from her care, Ashley secured an apartment not long after. But she chose not to
live there, deciding instead to spend most of her time with her paramour, who had
serious untreated mental-health and substance-abuse issues. Plus, Jack had
pending criminal charges for assaulting Ashley earlier this year. Despite that
incident, Ashley moved to dismiss the no-contact order and told her case worker
5
that she had no intention of leaving him. Just a few weeks before the termination
hearing, Ashley was spending every night with Jack.
The juvenile court accordingly expressed skepticism toward Ashley’s claim
that she and Jack had broken up, as do we. See A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 472 (giving
weight to juvenile court’s credibility findings). Throughout the life of this case, she
repeatedly put her relationship with Jack above the needs of her children. There
was no reason for the court to believe that her priorities had suddenly changed. In
re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Iowa 2000) (“The future can be gleaned from
evidence of the parents’ past performance and motivations.”). Ashley’s continued
association with Jack, a known drug user, shows C.R. could not be returned to her
care at the time of the hearing. See In re K.L., No. 15-0444, 2015 WL 4486182,
at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. July 22, 2015).
While Ashley took some steps to address her mental-health needs, they
were not significant. She did not obtain a mental-health evaluation until months
after it was recommended. She was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, generalized
anxiety disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and depression. Her
treatment plan recommended biweekly therapy sessions. Ashley attended those
only a few times. She did undergo a psychiatric evaluation in November 2020 and
attended monthly medication management sessions. But she never obtained a
psychological evaluation despite recommendations to do so given her reported
intellectual disability.
Ashley engaged in other services, like parenting classes, but she did not
seem able to fully internalize the lessons. Her family-centered services provider
had to remind Ashley numerous times to support C.R.’s head when he was an
6
infant. Ashley’s solution when C.R. was fussy was to feed him even after he had
already eaten. Once, Ashley left C.R. in the care of a neighbor whom she barely
knew.
The record shows that after years of services, Ashley still could not care for
C.R. without ongoing DHS involvement. See In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 111
(Iowa 2014). “[O]ur legislature has carefully constructed a time frame to provide a
balance between the parent’s efforts and the child’s long-term best interests.” Id.(alteration in original) (quoting D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707). Here, that statutory
timeframe is six months. Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h). C.R. has been out of
Ashley’s care for most of his young life. He needs and deserves permanency,
which can be provided to him in the pre-adoptive foster home placement. For
these reasons, we affirm the termination of Ashley’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.