In the Interest of W.S., Minor Child, J.S., Mother ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1605
Filed November 25, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF W.S.,
Minor Child,
J.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Julie A.
Schumacher, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her paternal rights. AFFIRMED.
Nicole J. Augustine of Elizabeth A. Rosenbaum, P.C., Sioux City, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd and
Kathryn Lang, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
Mercedes S. Ivener, Sioux City, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
A mother appeals1 the termination of her parental rights to a child,
claiming the court should have continued the hearing and placement for six
months and provided her with additional services, termination is not in the child’s
best interests, termination is not appropriate as the child has been placed with a
relative, and termination would be detrimental to the child due to the closeness of
the parent-child relationship. We affirm the juvenile court’s order.
We review de novo proceedings terminating parental rights. See In re
A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). The three-step statutory framework
governing the termination of parental rights is well established and need not be
repeated herein. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). The juvenile
court issued a thorough and well-reasoned ruling terminating the mother’s
parental rights, and we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the
juvenile court’s order as our own.
The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa
Code sections 232.116(1)(b) and (d) (2013). On appeal, the mother does not
challenge the termination under these grounds. Instead, the mother asks for
more time and services to help her work toward reunification and claims
termination is not in the child’s best interests. She claims she needs the
additional time to continue making steps in remedying the problems that led to
the child’s removal. On this issue, the juvenile court noted:
1
The child’s father’s parental rights were terminated and he does not appeal.
3
While [the mother] requests an additional six months, the
Court’s careful review of the entire record in this case, stemming
from substance abuse usage from age 13 and 14 to the present,
acknowledgement of almost daily methamphetamine use from May
2014 to November 2014, failure to maintain contact with [W.S.],
failure to address any domestic abuse issues, failure to participate
in substance abuse treatment, failure to be involved in these Court
proceedings, failure to participate in reunification services, and
failure to maintain stable housing or employment, leads the Court to
make a finding that [W.S.] could not be placed in the custody of his
mother now or at any time in the reasonably near future. The
circumstances that existed at the time of [W.S.]’s adjudication
continue to exist. In spite of all evidence to the contrary, the mother
insisted during her testimony at today's hearing, that there has
been no history of domestic violence between her and the putative
father. . . . No steps have been taken to either acknowledge or
address that danger to herself and her young children.
[W.S.] has been out of his mother’s custody for
approximately 15 months. [The mother] made no efforts toward
reunification until after the Termination of Parental Rights Petition
was filed. It is too little, too late. [The mother] made a conscious
decision to have no contact with her son or provide for his financial,
physical or emotional needs. [The mother]’s whereabouts were
largely unknown throughout the course of these proceedings.
[W.S.] has been abandoned by his mother . . . .
We agree with the juvenile court’s reasoning. A parent does not have an
unlimited amount of time to correct her deficiencies. In re H.L.B.R., 567 N.W.2d
675, 677 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). The child needs a responsible parent now, and
can no longer wait for his mother, especially at his young age. In re D.W., 791
N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010). We find termination is in the best interests of
W.S.
The mother claims termination is not in the child’s best interests pursuant
to Iowa Code section 232.116(2), we should grant an exception to the
termination pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(3) due to the fact the child
4
resides with a relative, and due to the close parent-child relationship. On these
points the juvenile court reasoned:
[W.S.] is currently placed with his maternal grandparents.
He has done well in the placement. He has made great strides in
his speech and communication. He is reported to be a “joy” by the
maternal grandparents. However, the maternal grandparents have
made a decision not to request consideration for placement as an
adoptive home. [The father]’s mother . . . has expressed an
interest in being an adoptive placement for [W.S.]. [W.S.] is familiar
with his putative paternal grandmother. Further, it appears that if
[the paternal grandmother] is chosen as the adoptive home, she will
ensure continuation of the relationship between [W.S.] and his
maternal grandparents. Further, it is likely that [the mother] would
remain a part of [W.S.]’s life if placed in that home, subject to
protection as provided by the placement. [W.S.] is adoptable and is
only two years old.
....
The Court is to give primary consideration to the safety, best
placement option for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth
of the child, and to the physical, mental, and emotional condition
and needs of the child. This Court finds that it would be in the best
interests of [W.S.] to terminate the parent-child relationships so that
he will have the opportunity to grow and mature in a safe, healthy
and stimulating environment.
Based on our de novo review of the record, we agree with the juvenile
court and find allowing the mother to retain her parental rights due the child’s
placement with relatives and a close parent-child relationship would be contrary
to his best interests.
We affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating the mother's parental
rights without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a)-(e).
AFFIRMED.