In re J.W. and M.W., Minor Children

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: June 7, 2023
• Docket: 23-0270
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-0270 Filed June 7, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF J.W. and M.W., Minor Children,

A.L., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David Staudt,

Judge.

A mother appeals an order terminating her parental rights to two children.

AFFIRMED.

Andrew C. Abbott of Abbott Law Office, P.C., Waterloo, for appellant

mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Kelly Jo Smith of the Juvenile Public Defender’s Office, Waterloo, attorney

and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ. 2

VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.

A mother appeals an order terminating her parental rights to twins, born in

2021. She putatively challenges the evidence supporting the grounds for

termination cited by the district court. She also contends the district court should

not have terminated her parental rights based on the fact that a relative had

custody of the children and based on the claimed bond she shared with them.

The district court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa

Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (h) (2022). The mother appears to argue that she

maintained significant and meaningful contact with the children, precluding

termination under section 232.116(1)(e). She does not challenge the evidence

supporting termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h), which requires

proof of several elements including proof a child cannot be returned to parental

custody. Accordingly, we could affirm on the unchallenged ground. See In re P.L.,

778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010) (finding it unnecessary to discuss the grounds for

termination where the father did not challenge them). We elect to address the

evidence supporting termination under the challenged ground.

The mother tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamine when she

delivered the twins. The children were discharged from the hospital to the home

of their maternal grandmother, where the mother had been living. The mother

initially followed a safety plan implemented by the Iowa Department of Health and

Human Services. Approximately two months after the children’s birth, the

grandparents reported that the mother left the home and was found at another

home with bruises all over her face. The grandparents surmised she had been

beaten. Later the same day, the mother came to the grandparents’ home in a state 3

of heightened anxiety and said she planned to leave the State with the children.

Police were called. They took her to a hospital after she threatened to harm

herself.

The department applied to have the children temporarily removed. The

district court granted the application. The parents stipulated to continued

temporary removal of the children as well as their adjudication as children in need

of assistance. Care, custody, and control of the children was placed with the

grandparents.

The mother, who was on parole, regularly met with her parole officer and,

for a period of time, tested negative for illicit drugs. Six months after the children’s

birth, she stopped visiting them despite “the opportunity to be with them on a daily

basis.” Although she briefly reinitiated contact, she curtailed visits and other

reunification services in mid-July 2022, following the issuance of an arrest warrant

which, according to the department, was for “[v]iolations of her probation.” While

she attended the children’s one-year birthday party in November 2022, she did not

appear at the termination hearing the next month. Her attorney informed the court

he had not had any contact with her for five months.

The mother was arrested and incarcerated before the termination order was

filed. Shortly thereafter, the State applied to have the children removed from the

grandparents’ custody after marijuana and guns were found in their home.

Approximately one hour before filing the termination order, the district court

transferred care, custody, and control of the children to the department for

placement in foster care. 4

On our de novo review of the record, we conclude the mother did not have

significant and meaningful contact with the children. See Iowa Code

§ 232.116(1)(e)(3) (“‘[S]ignificant and meaningful contact’ includes but is not

limited to the affirmative assumption by the parents of the duties encompassed by

the role of being a parent. This affirmative duty, in addition to financial obligations,

requires continued interest in the child, a genuine effort to complete the

responsibilities prescribed in the case permanency plan, a genuine effort to

maintain communication with the child, and requires that the parents establish and

maintain a place of importance in the child’s life.”); In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315,

323 (Iowa 2021) (finding clear and convincing evidence to support termination

under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) where the father “had ample opportunity

to meet with and participate in [the child’s] life during the relevant six-month period

. . . [but] made very little effort to become part of [the child’s] life”).

We turn to the “relative custody” and parent-child bond exceptions to

termination. See Iowa Code § 232.116(3)(a), (c). Although the grandparents had

custody of the children at the time of the termination hearing, the mother’s absence

from the children’s lives for the six months preceding the termination hearing

served as grounds for declining to invoke the relative exception, especially in light

of the department’s recommendation to proceed with termination. See In re A.S.,

906 N.W.2d 467, 476-77 (Iowa 2018) (giving weight to the testimony of the

department case manager). As for the mother’s claimed bond with the children,

she made scant effort to foster the relationship in the six months preceding the

termination hearing. For these reasons, the court appropriately declined to invoke

the exceptions. 5

We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to the children.