In the Interest of R.S. and J.S., Minor Children ( 2022 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-1427
Filed November 17, 2022
IN THE INTEREST OF R.S. and J.S.,
Minor Children,
J.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County, Russell G. Keast,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
David R. Fiester of the Law Office of David R. Fiester, Cedar Rapids, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Deborah M. Skelton, Walford, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.
2
BOWER, Chief Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.1 On our de novo
review, see In re J.H., 952 N.W.2d 157, 166 (Iowa 2020), we find a ground for
termination has been established and termination is in the children’s best interests.
We affirm.
The department of health and human services (DHHS) began services with
the family in July 2020, following allegations of substance abuse by the parents.
J.S., born in 2019, was adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) in the
summer of 2020; R.S., born in late 2020, was adjudicated a CINA in March 2021.
The children remained in the parental home until May 2021, when an unannounced
home visit by DHHS found the home in a hazardous condition and aroused
suspicions the parents continued their drug use. The children tested positive for
methamphetamine, after which both parents admitted ongoing substance abuse.
In August, the mother entered a residential drug-treatment program, and in
September, the court allowed the children a trial home placement with the mother.2
Although the mother successfully completed residential treatment, she did not
participate in recommended aftercare. At the end of November, the mother tested
positive for marijuana, and the children were removed from her care in early
December. She tested positive for methamphetamine in January, February,
March, and May 2022.
1The father’s parental rights were also terminated; he does not appeal.
2In its September order, the juvenile court granted the parents an additional six
months to achieve reunification.
3
At the June termination trial, the mother admitted she had used
methamphetamine two weeks earlier. She was living with the father, who testified
he had used methamphetamine within the past week. The mother was “waiting
for a bed” at a different inpatient treatment program where the children could join
her and planned to transition to living in a new city with a fresh start.
The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code
section 232.116(1)(h) (2022).3 She appeals.
In contesting the ground for termination, the mother concedes the statutory
elements of age, CINA adjudication, and length of removal have been established.
See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(1)–(3). She asserts the final element—the
children could not be returned to her custody—was not established by clear and
convincing evidence.4
3 To terminate parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h), the court
must find all the following:
(1) The child is three years of age or younger.
(2) The child has been adjudicated a [CINA] pursuant to
section 232.96.
(3) The child has been removed from the physical custody of
the child’s parents for at least six months of the last twelve months,
or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home
has been less than thirty days.
(4) There is clear and convincing evidence that the child
cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided
in section 232.102 at the present time.
4 The State asserts error was not preserved on this argument, stating there was
not clear evidence she was claiming the children could be immediately returned at
the time of the hearing. Whether the children could return to her care was an
element the State had to prove and the court necessarily had to find established
before terminating the mother’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h). And
our de novo review requires us to determine whether there is clear and convincing
evidence to support a termination of parental rights. The issue is properly before
us.
4
The mother admitted using methamphetamine approximately two weeks
before the termination trial and testified to being around active users while wearing
a drug patch. The “active users” around her includes the father—who admitted
recent use and with whom the mother still resided. Both parents testified they
hoped to enter inpatient treatment in the coming weeks. The mother claims on
appeal to be “prepared for the children to return to her care immediately,” but she
also requested an extension to complete substance abuse treatment and establish
a stable home.
We agree with the juvenile court’s analysis of the final element and adopt
its findings.
The concerns that initiated [DHHS] involvement with this family in
July of 2020 remained unresolved at the time of trial. Both parents
acknowledge a long-term struggle with addiction to illegal
substances, marijuana[,] and methamphetamine. The parents’
inability to maintain a safe and sanitary home for their children is
indicative of the danger that these children are subject to due to the
parents’ inability to provide them with adequate care and
supervision, as a result of their substance abuse choices. The court
recognizes that methamphetamine addiction is an extremely difficult
affliction to resolve. However, neither parent has demonstrated an
effort during these proceedings that would establish that they are
placing their children’s health, safety, and future as a priority over
their desire to use methamphetamine. They have both frittered away
the time available to them to address these issues with excuses,
procrastination, and dishonesty. Both parents acknowledged at the
trial that they have made no progress in resolving their addiction
issues and are in need of more treatment. . . . [The mother] did
complete an inpatient treatment program in October of 2021, but
failed to follow through with all recommended aftercare and quickly
returned to regularly using methamphetamine. The evidence
overwhelmingly establishes that neither parent has made any
progress in addressing their substance abuse issues, and the
children cannot safely be returned to their care and custody at this
time.
5
“Even after we have determined that statutory grounds for termination exist,
we must still determine whether termination is in the children’s best interests.” In
re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014) (citation omitted). The mother asserts
termination is not in the children’s best interests because of her strong bond with
the children and “the potential dramatic effect” breaking that bond may have on the
children. This argument combines the best-interests analysis with a permissive
exception to termination. See Iowa Code § 232.116(2) (establishing factors for the
court to consider in determining the best placement for the child); id.§ 232.116(3)(c) (“There is clear and convincing evidence that the termination
would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of the parent-
child relationship.”).
“[T]he court shall 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 legislature carefully constructed [the statutory] time frame to
balance the parent’s efforts toward reunification and the child’s best interests.”
J.H., 952 N.W.2d at 170. After that statutory time frame has passed, “termination
proceedings must be viewed with a sense of urgency.” Id. (citation omitted).
While the mother takes good care of the children during supervised visits,
she has not remained drug free outside of treatment and has not shown she is the
best placement for the children. Her trial home placement started while in
residential treatment, but once out and caring for the children, she did not
participate in aftercare for either substance abuse or mental health. She relapsed
using marijuana, and the children were removed; she then tested positive for
6
methamphetamine for several months. Despite two years of services, the mother
is still not able to provide the drug-free home necessary for the children’s safety
and long-term growth. These children deserve stability and permanency, and
termination is in their best interests.
As to her parent-child bond argument, “once the State has proven a ground
for termination, the parent resisting termination bears the burden to establish an
exception to termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(3).” In re A.S., 906
N.W.2d 467, 476 (Iowa 2018). While the mother has a bond with the children, they
have spent much of their young lives moving among caregivers due to her
substance abuse. The mother did not meet her burden to establish by clear and
convincing evidence termination would be detrimental to the children due to the
closeness of their bond. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(c). We affirm the
termination of the mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.