IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1508 Filed March 9, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF A.D., Minor Child,
S.L., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Mark F. Schlenker,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her one-year-old
daughter. AFFIRMED.
Chira Corwin of Corwin Law Firm L.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
M. Kathryn Miller of the Des Moines Juvenile Public Defender, Des
Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ. 2
TABOR, Presiding Judge.
A.D. tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. She was removed
from her mother’s care before leaving the hospital in November 2014 and has
been in foster care since. Citing the mother’s lack of significant efforts to resolve
her drug addiction, the juvenile court granted the State’s petition to terminate
parental rights in August 2015.
The mother asks for six more months to work toward reunification,
disagreeing with the juvenile court’s conclusion that termination was in A.D.’s
best interests and was “less detrimental than the harm that would be caused by
continuing the parent-child relationship.” The mother also contends the Iowa
Department of Human Services (DHS) did not make reasonable efforts to assist
her with budgeting and transportation issues.
After reviewing the entire record anew,1 we find an extension of time was
not warranted, and no clear and convincing evidence existed to support the
mother’s position that termination would be detrimental to A.D. because of their
close bond. In addition, the mother did not preserve her claim regarding
reasonable efforts. Accordingly, we affirm the termination order.
The mother was twenty-three-years old when she gave birth to A.D.2 Both
A.D.’s mother and father3 admitted using methamphetamine. The mother’s
addiction started two years earlier and progressed to daily use during her
1 We review termination proceedings de novo. In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). “We are not bound by the juvenile court’s findings of fact, but we do give them weight, especially in assessing the credibility of witnesses.” Id. 2 The mother has two older children who are not part of this appeal but also are not in her custody. 3 The juvenile court also terminated the father’s parental rights, but he is not a party to this appeal. 3
pregnancy. The parents consented to DHS removal of the baby in early
November 2014. The juvenile court adjudicated A.D. as a child in need of
assistance on December 22, 2014. The mother did not communicate with the
DHS during late December 2014 or early January 2015. The juvenile court
issued a disposition order on February 6, 2015, requiring the mother receive
mental health and substance abuse evaluations, follow the evaluators’
recommendations, and submit to random drug tests.
The mother’s substance abuse evaluation recommended treatment, but
she did not complete treatment. In fact, the mother told the DHS case worker
that she was attending substance abuse treatment for three months in early
2015, but she was not. The mother was recommended for family recovery court,
but opted not to participate. She missed random drug tests or completed them
several days late. The mother did not undergo a mental health evaluation as
required by the disposition order.
The mother participated in visitation with A.D.—at first one two-hour
session per week and eventually two two-hour sessions per week. The Family
Safety Risk and Permanency (FSRP) worker brought the baby to the parents’
residence. Although the sessions were scheduled for the afternoon, the FSRP
worker repeatedly found the parents were not awake or prepared when she
arrived with A.D. The mother attributed her difficulty in waking to issues with
depression. Otherwise, the mother interacted well with A.D. during the visits and
the FSRP worker believed they were developing a bond. The mother missed
A.D.’s doctor appointments, blaming her absence on transportation problems.
The mother did not have a driver’s license or employment. 4
On May 6, 2015, the State filed a petition to terminate parental rights. The
court held a two-day hearing in June and July 2015. The mother failed to appear
for the second day of the hearing, resulting in a continuance. On August 29,
2015, the juvenile court issued an order terminating the mother’s parental rights
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) and (l) (2015). The mother appeals.
On appeal, the mother does not challenge the statutory grounds for
termination. In the absence of a challenge, the grounds for termination remain
undisturbed. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). Rather than
challenging the grounds for termination, the mother seeks an additional six
months under Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b).4
The juvenile court found “it is unlikely that the continued offer of services
and an additional period of time to utilize those services will rectify the concerns
that brought this family to the attention of the Court.” We agree with that finding.
The mother’s drug addiction during her pregnancy resulted in A.D. testing
positive for methamphetamine at birth. Yet, the mother did not follow through
with drug treatment after the removal of her child. In fact, for several months she
lied to the DHS about attending treatment. The mother asserted she had
“changed” during the course of the CINA case, but her only evidence in support
of that assertion was an appointment she had scheduled to start out-patient
4 Section 232.104(2)(b) reads in relevant part: [T]o continue placement of the child for an additional six months at which time the court shall hold a hearing to consider modification of its permanency order. An order entered under this paragraph shall enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes which comprise the basis for the determination that the need for removal of the child from the child's home will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period. 5
substance abuse treatment the day after the termination hearing. She also did
not follow through with mental health treatment.
Iowa courts look skeptically at “last-minute” attempts to address
longstanding issues, finding them inadequate to preclude termination of parental
rights. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000). Here, the mother did
not act until after the eleventh hour. As the juvenile court determined, continued
placement for six months was not appropriate because the record did not show
the need for removal would have been resolved at the end of the extension. See
In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 92 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005).
The mother next takes issue with the juvenile court’s conclusion that
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1508 Filed March 9, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF A.D., Minor Child,
S.L., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Mark F. Schlenker,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her one-year-old
daughter. AFFIRMED.
Chira Corwin of Corwin Law Firm L.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
M. Kathryn Miller of the Des Moines Juvenile Public Defender, Des
Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ. 2
TABOR, Presiding Judge.
A.D. tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. She was removed
from her mother’s care before leaving the hospital in November 2014 and has
been in foster care since. Citing the mother’s lack of significant efforts to resolve
her drug addiction, the juvenile court granted the State’s petition to terminate
parental rights in August 2015.
The mother asks for six more months to work toward reunification,
disagreeing with the juvenile court’s conclusion that termination was in A.D.’s
best interests and was “less detrimental than the harm that would be caused by
continuing the parent-child relationship.” The mother also contends the Iowa
Department of Human Services (DHS) did not make reasonable efforts to assist
her with budgeting and transportation issues.
After reviewing the entire record anew,1 we find an extension of time was
not warranted, and no clear and convincing evidence existed to support the
mother’s position that termination would be detrimental to A.D. because of their
close bond. In addition, the mother did not preserve her claim regarding
reasonable efforts. Accordingly, we affirm the termination order.
The mother was twenty-three-years old when she gave birth to A.D.2 Both
A.D.’s mother and father3 admitted using methamphetamine. The mother’s
addiction started two years earlier and progressed to daily use during her
1 We review termination proceedings de novo. In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). “We are not bound by the juvenile court’s findings of fact, but we do give them weight, especially in assessing the credibility of witnesses.” Id. 2 The mother has two older children who are not part of this appeal but also are not in her custody. 3 The juvenile court also terminated the father’s parental rights, but he is not a party to this appeal. 3
pregnancy. The parents consented to DHS removal of the baby in early
November 2014. The juvenile court adjudicated A.D. as a child in need of
assistance on December 22, 2014. The mother did not communicate with the
DHS during late December 2014 or early January 2015. The juvenile court
issued a disposition order on February 6, 2015, requiring the mother receive
mental health and substance abuse evaluations, follow the evaluators’
recommendations, and submit to random drug tests.
The mother’s substance abuse evaluation recommended treatment, but
she did not complete treatment. In fact, the mother told the DHS case worker
that she was attending substance abuse treatment for three months in early
2015, but she was not. The mother was recommended for family recovery court,
but opted not to participate. She missed random drug tests or completed them
several days late. The mother did not undergo a mental health evaluation as
required by the disposition order.
The mother participated in visitation with A.D.—at first one two-hour
session per week and eventually two two-hour sessions per week. The Family
Safety Risk and Permanency (FSRP) worker brought the baby to the parents’
residence. Although the sessions were scheduled for the afternoon, the FSRP
worker repeatedly found the parents were not awake or prepared when she
arrived with A.D. The mother attributed her difficulty in waking to issues with
depression. Otherwise, the mother interacted well with A.D. during the visits and
the FSRP worker believed they were developing a bond. The mother missed
A.D.’s doctor appointments, blaming her absence on transportation problems.
The mother did not have a driver’s license or employment. 4
On May 6, 2015, the State filed a petition to terminate parental rights. The
court held a two-day hearing in June and July 2015. The mother failed to appear
for the second day of the hearing, resulting in a continuance. On August 29,
2015, the juvenile court issued an order terminating the mother’s parental rights
under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) and (l) (2015). The mother appeals.
On appeal, the mother does not challenge the statutory grounds for
termination. In the absence of a challenge, the grounds for termination remain
undisturbed. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). Rather than
challenging the grounds for termination, the mother seeks an additional six
months under Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b).4
The juvenile court found “it is unlikely that the continued offer of services
and an additional period of time to utilize those services will rectify the concerns
that brought this family to the attention of the Court.” We agree with that finding.
The mother’s drug addiction during her pregnancy resulted in A.D. testing
positive for methamphetamine at birth. Yet, the mother did not follow through
with drug treatment after the removal of her child. In fact, for several months she
lied to the DHS about attending treatment. The mother asserted she had
“changed” during the course of the CINA case, but her only evidence in support
of that assertion was an appointment she had scheduled to start out-patient
4 Section 232.104(2)(b) reads in relevant part: [T]o continue placement of the child for an additional six months at which time the court shall hold a hearing to consider modification of its permanency order. An order entered under this paragraph shall enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes which comprise the basis for the determination that the need for removal of the child from the child's home will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period. 5
substance abuse treatment the day after the termination hearing. She also did
not follow through with mental health treatment.
Iowa courts look skeptically at “last-minute” attempts to address
longstanding issues, finding them inadequate to preclude termination of parental
rights. See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2000). Here, the mother did
not act until after the eleventh hour. As the juvenile court determined, continued
placement for six months was not appropriate because the record did not show
the need for removal would have been resolved at the end of the extension. See
In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 92 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005).
The mother next takes issue with the juvenile court’s conclusion that
termination would be “less detrimental than the harm that would be caused by
continuing the parent-child relationship.” We read this argument as invoking
Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c), which allows the juvenile court to forego
terminating parental rights if “[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that the
termination would be detrimental to the child at the time due to the closeness of
the parent-child relationship.” But the factors in section 232.116(3) are
permissive, not mandatory. A.M., 843 N.W.2d at 113. The evidence here
supports the juvenile court’s finding that termination of the mother’s rights would
not work to A.D.’s detriment. We specifically consider A.D.’s tender age, as well
as the mother’s active drug use during pregnancy and her lack of interest in
addressing her addiction during the CINA case. The child was removed three
days after birth and has not been returned to her mother’s care. The bond
between A.D. and the mother that developed during their visits does not
outweigh the benefits of A.D. moving toward a permanent, stable home. See id. 6
(noting A.M. [like A.D.] had never been in the full-time care of her parents, having
been removed from their custody before she ever left the hospital).
Lastly, the mother claims the DHS failed to provide reasonable efforts in
“assisting her with budgeting, financial management, transportation, and financial
assistance.”5 A parent is required to inform the juvenile court if she believes
services have not been adequate. In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 148 (Iowa 2002).
In a disposition order filed on February 6, 2015, the juvenile court found the DHS
made reasonable efforts at reunifying the family. The mother did not contest that
finding or mount any other reasonable-efforts challenge before the termination
hearing. Accordingly, we decline to consider the argument in this termination
appeal. See In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425, 442 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015); see also In
re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999) (noting that while the State has
an obligation to make reasonable efforts to preserve the family, it is a parent’s
responsibility to demand other, different, or additional services). Because the
mother did not inform the juvenile court of the need for additional services before
the termination hearing, she did not preserve this issue for appellate review.
AFFIRMED.
5 Contrary to her argument on appeal, the mother testified at the termination hearing that the FSRP worker did assist the family with budgeting advice.