In the Interest of A.M.-G. and A.M., Minor Children ( 2022 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-1429
Filed November 17, 2022
IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.-G. and A.M.,
Minor Children,
P.M., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt,
Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.
Joseph G. Martin, Cedar Falls, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Kimberly S. Lange of the Public Defender’s Office, Waterloo, attorney and
guardian ad litem.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.
2
SCHUMACHER, Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. She claims
termination is not in the best interests of the children and asks for a six-month
extension. We find termination is in the children’s best interests. Additionally, a
six-month extension in not warranted on the facts in this record. We affirm.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
The instant proceedings began in August 2020 after the Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS) became aware of reports of the mother’s
failure to safely supervise her children, as well as the mother’s drug use.1 A.M.-
G., age three-and-a-half, and A.M., age two-and-a-half, were removed from their
mother’s custody and placed with their maternal grandmother, where they have
remained for the duration of the case.
The mother was instructed to complete substance-abuse treatment, comply
with drug testing, complete a mental-health evaluation and fulfill any recommended
treatment, participate in Family Centered Services (FCS) and the SafeCare
curriculum, and consistently attend visits with the children. Little progress was
made on any of these goals. The mother completed a substance-abuse evaluation
in July 2021, which diagnosed her with cocaine use disorder—severe, cannabis
use disorder—severe, and opiate use disorder—severe, in sustained remission.
However, the mother did not complete any substance-abuse treatment. Nor did
she engage in mental-health treatment, despite self-disclosing to DHHS that she
suffered from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Visitation was also problematic
1 The mother was involved with DHHS in 2018 because of similar concerns.
3
for the mother. Providers reported that the mother easily grew frustrated with the
children, failed to discipline them, failed to properly supervise them, and left
numerous hazards around the house, including loose pills and scissors within the
children’s reach. The mother completed only ten drug tests over eighteen months,
one of which was positive for cocaine and several of which were indicative of non-
human urine, resulting in presumptive positive results.
The State petitioned to terminate the mother’s parental rights in December
2021. Following a hearing, the court granted the mother a six-month extension,
noting the mother’s spirited promises to improve her situation. Still the mother
struggled to make progress. Despite efforts to make visits more available, the
mother only participated in about thirteen of twenty-six visits since February.
Similarly, she only participated in five of thirteen FCS meetings and three of six
SafeCare classes. She tested positive for cocaine on May 28, 2022, the day after
her most recent child’s birth, and admitted to drug use during the pregnancy. 2
Hospital staff indicated she was not compliant with the mental-health medication
she purported to be taking at the time.
The mother blames much of her continued struggles with sobriety and visits
on health problems she encountered since the February hearing, some of which
related to her pregnancy. While DHHS did not doubt the existence of some
medical issues, the mother never signed medical releases so DHHS could verify
the restrictions she claimed were in place. Her visits were held virtually in April
and May to accommodate the mother being placed on bedrest. Despite those
2 The new baby is not part of the instant appeal.
4
accommodations, the mother still attended only five of fourteen offered visits during
those months. She completed a new substance-abuse evaluation on June 6,
which recommended inpatient treatment.3 The mother was referred to a facility at
the same time.
A second termination hearing was held June 9. After hearing testimony
from the DHHS caseworker and the mother, the juvenile court terminated the
mother’s rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(h) and (l) (2022). The
mother subsequently moved to reconsider, which the court denied. The mother
appeals.4
II. Standard of Review
We review the termination of parental rights de novo. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d
30, 40 (Iowa 2010). We generally review such proceedings using a three-step
analysis. Id. at 39. However, the mother does not contest that there is a statutory
ground for termination or whether permissive exceptions apply that could prevent
termination. See id. Thus, we need not discuss those steps. Id. at 40.
III. Discussion
The mother claims termination is not in the best interests of the children.
When considering the best interests of the children, we “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).
3 The mother signed a limited release of information, informing DHS about the
occurrence of the evaluation and the recommendation for treatment, but omitting
her diagnoses.
4 The father’s parental rights were also terminated. He does not appeal.
5
We determine termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s
best interests. The mother has made little discernable progress over the course
of the case. She has failed to complete substance-abuse treatment and has not
participated in mental-health treatment. Despite self-reporting she suffers from
bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, she was non-compliant with her medication
around the time of her most-recent child’s birth. The mother tested positive for
cocaine about two weeks prior to the termination hearing, which indicated use
while she was pregnant. The mother’s substance-abuse and mental-health
present a real danger to the children. She has continued to struggle supervising
the children during visits.
The children have been removed from the mother’s custody for about
twenty months—a substantial portion of their young lives. The maternal
grandmother, the current placement, is a licensed adoptive home. See In re A.M.,
843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014). Waiting for the mother to resolve her
substance-abuse issues is not in the children’s best interests. See P.L., 778
N.W.2d at 41 (“It is well-settled law that we cannot deprive a child of permanency
after the State has proved a ground for termination under section 232.116(1) by
hoping that someday a parent will learn to be a parent and be able to provide a
stable home for the child.”).
The mother also requests a six-month extension, contending she could
enter inpatient treatment without harming the children by continuing their
placement with their maternal grandmother. She also blames the lack of progress
she has made thus far on health issues. Juvenile courts may grant a six-month
extension to proceedings when there is a basis to believe “the need for removal of
6
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 juvenile court properly denied the six-month extension. First, as noted
above, the mother has made very little progress over the proceeding twenty
months. While she blames medical issues have hindered her progress, those
issues only arose after the February 2022 hearing in which the court granted a six-
month extension. She cannot explain her lack of participation or progress prior to
that hearing. And DHHS made accommodations for those health issues, allowing
her to do virtual visits and offering at-home drug testing. The mother failed to
meaningfully utilize those options.
Similarly, while the mother contends she will enter inpatient treatment soon,
she has failed to maintain her sobriety for the past four years of DHHS involvement.
She continued her drug use following the discovery of her most recent pregnancy
and the February hearing that provided a six-month extension. See In re A.B., 815
N.W.2d 764, 778 (Iowa 2012) (explaining that a parent’s past conduct is indicative
of future behavior). Given her extensive history of non-participation in services,
her assurance to attend inpatient treatment at the time of the termination hearing
rings hollow. The mother had ample time to tackle her substance abuse issues,
but failed to do so. The juvenile court quoted the DHHS caseworker as aptly
describing the issue:
[The mother] has spent a great deal of energy trying to prove
her excuses for complying with treatment and testing. It remains very
difficult to believe [her] as she has provided many explanations.
When asked to provide facts and documentation she is not able to
do so.
7
The mother’s assurances notwithstanding, nothing in the record suggests
the children could be safely returned to her custody in the next six-months. A six-
month extension is not appropriate in this case.
AFFIRMED.