In the Interest of A.C., Minor Child ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1054
Filed November 6, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF A.C.,
Minor Child,
T.K., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.
AFFIRMED.
Aaron H. Ginkens of Ginkens Law Firm, P.L.C., West Des Moines, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anna T. Stoeffler (until withdrawal)
and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee State.
ConGarry Williams of the State Public Defender Office, Des Moines,
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.
2
DOYLE, Presiding Judge.
In this appeal of an order terminating parental rights, a mother challenges
the statutory ground for termination and the finding that termination is in the child’s
best interests. She also seeks to avoid termination based on one of the grounds
set forth in Iowa Code section 232.116(3) (2018). We review these claims de novo.
See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 472 (Iowa 2018).
We must first determine whether the State proved the ground for terminating
the mother’s parental rights. See id. at 472-73. The evidence establishes the first
three requirements for termination under section 232.116(1)(f), which relate to the
child’s age, a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) adjudication, and the child’s
removal from the parent’s care. The question is whether the State proved that
returning the child to the parent at the time of the termination hearing would expose
the child to a harm that would lead to a new CINA adjudication. See Iowa Code
§ 232.116(1)(f)(4) (requiring “clear and convincing evidence that at the present
time the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided
in section 232.102”); In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010) (interpreting
the term “at the present time” to mean to mean “at the time of the termination
hearing”); In re M.S., 889 N.W.2d 675, 680 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (observing that a
child cannot be returned to the custody of the parent under section 232.102 if doing
so would exposed the child to any harm amounting to a new CINA adjudication).
Clear and convincing evidence shows the child could not be returned to the
mother’s care at the time of the termination hearing because the mother was in jail
for violating her probation by using marijuana and methamphetamine and would
remain there awaiting placement in a residential treatment facility. See In re S.J.,
3
620 N.W.2d 522, 526 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000) (noting immediate reunification
between parent and child is impossible when the parent remains incarcerated at
the time of the termination hearing).
Having found clear and convincing evidence to terminate under section
232.116(1)(f), we must next determine whether termination is in the child’s best
interests. See A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 473. Considering “the child’s safety,” “the best
placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of the child,” and “the
physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the child,” In re P.L., 778
N.W.2d 33, 37 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Iowa Code § 232.116(2)), we agree that
termination is in the child’s best interest. The substance-use issues that led to the
CINA adjudication continued to the time of termination. Although the mother failed
to maintain sobriety, she minimized her substance use and denied needing
inpatient treatment.
Finally, we consider whether any of the circumstances listed in section
232.116(3) applies and, if so, whether it weighs against terminating parental rights.
See A.S., 906 N.W.2d at 473. The mother argues section 232.116(3)(a) applies
because the child is in the legal custody of a relative. But that relative strongly
opposes a guardianship or reunification and declined to serve as guardian if the
court pursued that alternative. This section does not weigh against termination.
And the two other grounds the mother urges do not apply; the child is not over ten
years old, and we need not consider any objection the child may have to
termination. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(b). Nor is there evidence that
termination of the mother’s parental rights would harm the child based on the
closeness of their relationship. See id. § 232.116(3)(c).
4
Having considered the mother’s arguments on appeal and found them to
lack merit, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.