In the Interest of M.E., Minor Child ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1041
Filed March 7, 2018
IN THE INTEREST OF M.E.,
Minor Child,
L.E., Father,
Petitioner-Appellee,
J.P., Mother,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Paul G. Crawford,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights
under Iowa Code chapter 600A. AFFIRMED.
Jennie L. Wilson-Moore of Wilson Law Firm, Conrad, for appellant mother.
Melissa A. Nine of Nine Law Office, Marshalltown, for appellee father.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and McDonald, JJ.
2
TABOR, Judge.
A mother, Jill, appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental
rights to her now seven-year-old son, M.E. The court granted the petition filed by
M.E.’s father, Luke, who alleged Jill abandoned their son within the meaning of
Iowa Code section 600A.8(3)(b) (2015). The court found Jill’s use of illicit drugs
and criminal conduct rendered her unavailable as a parent to M.E. Jill now argues
the court was mistaken in finding she did not maintain “substantial and continuous
or repeated contact” with M.E. She blames Luke’s actions, not her own
incarceration or addiction, for her infrequent interactions with their son. After
reviewing the record independently,1 we find clear and convincing evidence
supporting the juvenile court’s decision to terminate Jill’s parental rights.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
Jill and Luke dated but never married. Jill gave birth to M.E. in October
2010. Jill first informed Luke he might be the father in January 2011 while Luke
was deployed to Afghanistan. On leave the next month, Luke took a paternity test
confirming he was M.E.’s father. Jill was M.E.’s primary caregiver until he was
about one year old. Luke and Jill jointly cared for M.E. briefly in late 2011, but by
January 2012, Luke took over the child-rearing responsibilities.
1
Our review of chapter 600A termination-of-parental-rights proceedings is de novo. See
In re R.K.B., 572 N.W.2d 600, 601 (Iowa 1998). “We give deference to the factual findings
of the juvenile court, especially those relating to witness credibility, but we are not bound
by those determinations.” In re G.A., 826 N.W.2d 125, 127 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012). We give
“due consideration” to the interests of the parents, but the child’s best interests are
“paramount” in our analysis. See Iowa Code § 600A.1.
3
Jill admits to having a “bad addiction” to opiates and heroin. Luke started
caring for M.E. on his own following an incident in which Luke and Jill’s father
requested police assistance to prevent Jill from taking M.E. They reported Jill had
been living with another drug addict with a lengthy criminal history. Later in 2012,
Jill had several arrests for possession of controlled substances and spent time in
jail. She also entered inpatient-substance-abuse treatment, but did not complete
the program. She had little contact with Luke and M.E. during that year. In 2013,
Jill attended a court-ordered, dual-diagnosis treatment program but did not
successfully complete the after-care sessions. Luke did not hear from Jill for long
stretches during 2013. In October 2013, the district court held a custody hearing,
but Jill did not appear. The district court issued an order placing M.E. in Luke’s
physical care and granting Jill supervised visitation. The decree specified Jill was
not allowed unsupervised visits until she could provide hair follicle tests that were
negative for all illegal and non-prescribed drugs for a period of six months. The
decree did not require Jill to pay child support.
In 2014, Jill had additional legal troubles, including flight from an arrest
warrant in March. She incurred a new drug-possession charge in April. She left a
drug rehabilitation program after just four days and ended up serving a prison term
at the Iowa Correctional Institute for Women in Mitchellville. She was released in
November 2014. On January 24, 2015, Luke and his wife, Lauren, allowed Jill to
have a supervised visit with M.E. Luke and Lauren did not know Jill had tested
positive for opiates and methamphetamine four days earlier. Because of the
violation, a warrant issued for Jill’s arrest on January 28. She evaded arrest until
September 2015. Luke testified Jill did not contact him and M.E. while she was
4
“on the run.” In October 2015, Jill was sentenced to serve an indeterminate two-
year prison term. That same month, Luke filed a petition asking to terminate Jill’s
parental relationship with M.E.
Jill was released from prison in December 2015. M.E. told Luke that he saw
Jill when visiting his maternal grandparents around Christmas. A few weeks later,
in January 2016, Jill gave birth to a second child; Luke was not the father, and Jill
had not told him about the pregnancy. The baby tested positive for heroin at birth.
Jill made two unsuccessful attempts at inpatient drug treatment in the spring of
2016. Jill returned to the Iowa Correctional Institute for Women in the fall of 2016.
In November, Jill called Luke from prison and asked for telephone contact with
M.E. They arranged for her to phone M.E. every Wednesday night, but Jill only
called two or three times.
The juvenile court held a two-day hearing on Luke’s petition in January
2017. Jill was still incarcerated at the time of the hearing. The court issued its
order terminating Jill’s parental relationship with M.E. in June 2017. She now
appeals that order.
II. Legal Analysis
A. Abandonment
In his petition to terminate Jill’s parental relationship with M.E., Luke alleged
abandonment. “To abandon a minor child” means that a parent “rejects the duties
imposed by the parent-child relationship.” Iowa Code § 600A.2(19). That rejection
“may be evinced by the person, while being able to do so, making no provision or
making only a marginal effort to provide for the support of the child or to
communicate with the child.” Id. To establish that Jill abandoned M.E., Luke must
5
show she failed to maintain “substantial and continuous or repeated contact” with
M.E. “as demonstrated by contribution toward support of the child of a reasonable
amount,” according to her means, and—because Jill did not live with M.E. in the
year before the hearing—that she did not (1) visit with M.E. at least once a month
when physically and financially able and when not prevented by Luke or (2) have
regular communication with M.E. when physically and financially unable to visit or
when visits were prevented by Luke. See id. § 600A.8(3)(b).
Jill argues her attempts to contact M.E. through Luke were “not rewarded
with visits.” Because of the animosity between her and Luke, Jill contends she
contacted M.E. by telephone when he was visiting her parents.
Given her years of misplaced priorities, we find little merit in Jill’s effort to
blame Luke for her absence from M.E.’s life. She must take personal responsibility
for her illicit drug use and criminal acts, “and cannot use such acts as a justification
for [her] lack of relationship with the child.” See G.A., 826 N.W.2d at 129. The
record shows that since 2012 Jill has failed to offer financial support for M.E. in a
reasonable amount according to her means and has fallen short of maintaining
steady or meaningful communication with her son.
Jill further contends abandonment is not necessarily a consequence of
incarceration and argues she attempted to maintain telephone contact with M.E.
But a parent cannot use incarceration as a justification for their lack of a
relationship with the child. In re M.M.S., 502 N.W.2d 4, 8 (Iowa 1993). During her
2016 incarceration, she arranged to call M.E. regularly but did not do so. Jill also
failed to maintain substantial contact of any kind while she was “on the run” or not
6
in jail. Her failure to maintain steady and meaningful communication with M.E. has
been a feature of most of M.E.’s life.
Further, the juvenile court disbelieved Jill’s testimony that she had repeated
telephone calls with M.E. when the child was visiting Jill’s parents. Alternatively,
the court opined even if Jill’s testimony was true, “literally, ‘phoning it in’” did not
“meet the vision of being a parent.” We share the juvenile court’s assessment that
Luke presented clear and convincing evidence of abandonment.
B. Best Interests
Although Jill does not directly raise a best interests argument on appeal,
she does contend she has a bond with M.E. When deciding if termination under
chapter 600A is in the child’s best interest, we borrow the analytical framework
described in Iowa Code section 232.116(2) and (3). In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 37
(Iowa 2010) (prioritizing the child’s safety and physical, mental, and emotional
health). Despite M.E.’s connection to Jill, her criminal history and unaddressed
substance abuse issues hinder her prospects for being a reliable parent. See G.A.,
826 N.W.2d at 131. Jill has not demonstrated the “fulfillment of financial
obligations, . . . continued interest in the child, . . . genuine effort to maintain
communication with the child, and . . . establishment and maintenance of a place
of importance in the child’s life” required to establish termination is not in M.E.’s
best interests. Iowa Code § 600A.1. On the other hand, Luke’s wife Lauren has
stepped into a mothering role and is willing to adopt M.E. We find Luke has
established by clear and convincing evidence that terminating Jill’s parental rights
would serve M.E.’s best interests.
AFFIRMED.