IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-0549 Filed June 5, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF A.W., M.W., and C.P., Minor Children,
M.P., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott D.
Strait, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Roberta J. Megel of State Public Defender Office, Council Bluffs, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anna T. Stoeffler, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Marti D. Nerenstone, Council Bluffs, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ. 2
BOWER, Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.
We find there is sufficient evidence in the record to support termination of the
mother’s parental rights. We find the services provided by the State were
reasonable under the circumstances. Also, we find termination of the mother’s
parental rights is in the children’s best interests. We affirm the juvenile court’s
decision.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
M.P. is the mother of twins, A.W. and M.W., born in 2016, and C.P., born in
2018.1 The mother’s parental rights to an older child, D.W., were terminated in
2015. A.W. and M.W. were removed from the mother’s care on August 8, 2017,
and placed in foster care. The mother tested positive for methamphetamine and
marijuana. Hair testing of the children was also positive for methamphetamine.
On September 26, A.W. and M.W. were adjudicated to be children in need
of assistance (CINA), under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2), (n), and (o) (2017).
In October, the mother was charged with domestic-abuse assault for punching the
maternal grandmother. The mother did not report for random drug tests or obtain
a substance-abuse evaluation. She was sporadic in attending visitation with the
children.
The mother tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana in April
2018. When C.P. was born, the mother also tested positive for methamphetamine
and marijuana. C.P. was removed from the mother’s care on May 2, 2018, and
1 D.W. is the father of the twins, while O.P. is the father of C.P. Neither father has appealed the termination of their parental rights. 3
placed in foster care. C.P. was adjudicated CINA under section 232.2(6)(c)(2), (n),
and (o) (2018).
The mother completed a substance-abuse treatment program in August.
She then attended outpatient substance-abuse and mental-health treatment. The
mother was placed in a residential correctional facility (RCF) in October and
November. After the mother left the RCF, she began living with the maternal great-
grandmother, who subsequently died. The mother was inconsistent in participation
in services and attending visitation. Additionally, she did not attend the children’s
medical appointments, although she was requested to attend.
The State filed a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights to A.W.
and M.W. on August 31, 2018. A petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights
to C.P. was filed on December 24, 2018. The mother did not visit the children
between December 24, 2018, and the date of the termination hearing, January 24,
2019. There was evidence the mother tested positive for alcohol in the week
before the termination hearing.
The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to
section 232.116(1)(e), (g), and (h). The court found the mother “was unable to
make her children her priority nor was she able to consistently place herself in a
place of importance in the children’s lives.” The court stated, “The children need
permanency in their lives,” and found termination of the mother’s parental rights is
in the children’s best interests. The mother appeals the termination of her parental
rights. 4
II. Standard of Review
We review de novo the termination of parental rights. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d
764, 773 (Iowa 2012). “There must be clear and convincing evidence of the
grounds for termination of parental rights.” In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219 (Iowa
2016). Where there is clear and convincing evidence, “there are no serious or
substantial doubts as to the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the
evidence.” In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010) (citation omitted). The
paramount concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the children.
In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The mother claims there is not sufficient evidence in the record to support
termination of her parental rights. “When the juvenile court orders termination of
parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we need only find grounds to
terminate on one of the sections to affirm.” In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425, 435 (Iowa
Ct. App. 2015). We will focus on the termination of the mother’s rights under
section 232.116(1)(g).
Section 232.116(1)(g) applies when (1) a child has been adjudicated CINA,
(2) the parent’s rights “to another child who is a member of the same family” have
been terminated, (3) the parent “continues to lack the ability or willingness to
respond to services which would correct the situation,” and (4) “[t]here is clear and
convincing evidence that an additional period of rehabilitation would not correct the
situation.”
Regarding section 232.116(1)(g), the juvenile court found: 5
The circumstances which led to the termination of those rights [to D.W.] continue to exist today. Services have been offered to correct these problems. However, the parents have failed to fully participate in services or put themselves in a position to resume care of these children. The Court further finds that an additional period of time would not help in correcting the situation.
The court also stated, the mother “has not complied with the terms and conditions
of the case plan. She has been inconsistent with visitation. She has missed all of
her children’s medical appointments. She has not put herself in a position to parent
or be regularly involved in the raising of her children.” We agree with the juvenile
court’s findings.
We conclude the mother’s parental rights were properly terminated under
section 232.116(1)(g). The children were adjudicated CINA. The mother’s rights
to an older child, D.W., were terminated in 2015. Despite receiving services over
a long period of time, there were still concerns with the mother’s sobriety and her
commitment to the children. Finally, there is clear and convincing evidence the
situation would not be resolved if the mother was given additional time.
IV. Reasonable Efforts
As part of her arguments concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-0549 Filed June 5, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF A.W., M.W., and C.P., Minor Children,
M.P., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott D.
Strait, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Roberta J. Megel of State Public Defender Office, Council Bluffs, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anna T. Stoeffler, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Marti D. Nerenstone, Council Bluffs, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ. 2
BOWER, Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.
We find there is sufficient evidence in the record to support termination of the
mother’s parental rights. We find the services provided by the State were
reasonable under the circumstances. Also, we find termination of the mother’s
parental rights is in the children’s best interests. We affirm the juvenile court’s
decision.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
M.P. is the mother of twins, A.W. and M.W., born in 2016, and C.P., born in
2018.1 The mother’s parental rights to an older child, D.W., were terminated in
2015. A.W. and M.W. were removed from the mother’s care on August 8, 2017,
and placed in foster care. The mother tested positive for methamphetamine and
marijuana. Hair testing of the children was also positive for methamphetamine.
On September 26, A.W. and M.W. were adjudicated to be children in need
of assistance (CINA), under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2), (n), and (o) (2017).
In October, the mother was charged with domestic-abuse assault for punching the
maternal grandmother. The mother did not report for random drug tests or obtain
a substance-abuse evaluation. She was sporadic in attending visitation with the
children.
The mother tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana in April
2018. When C.P. was born, the mother also tested positive for methamphetamine
and marijuana. C.P. was removed from the mother’s care on May 2, 2018, and
1 D.W. is the father of the twins, while O.P. is the father of C.P. Neither father has appealed the termination of their parental rights. 3
placed in foster care. C.P. was adjudicated CINA under section 232.2(6)(c)(2), (n),
and (o) (2018).
The mother completed a substance-abuse treatment program in August.
She then attended outpatient substance-abuse and mental-health treatment. The
mother was placed in a residential correctional facility (RCF) in October and
November. After the mother left the RCF, she began living with the maternal great-
grandmother, who subsequently died. The mother was inconsistent in participation
in services and attending visitation. Additionally, she did not attend the children’s
medical appointments, although she was requested to attend.
The State filed a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights to A.W.
and M.W. on August 31, 2018. A petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights
to C.P. was filed on December 24, 2018. The mother did not visit the children
between December 24, 2018, and the date of the termination hearing, January 24,
2019. There was evidence the mother tested positive for alcohol in the week
before the termination hearing.
The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to
section 232.116(1)(e), (g), and (h). The court found the mother “was unable to
make her children her priority nor was she able to consistently place herself in a
place of importance in the children’s lives.” The court stated, “The children need
permanency in their lives,” and found termination of the mother’s parental rights is
in the children’s best interests. The mother appeals the termination of her parental
rights. 4
II. Standard of Review
We review de novo the termination of parental rights. In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d
764, 773 (Iowa 2012). “There must be clear and convincing evidence of the
grounds for termination of parental rights.” In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219 (Iowa
2016). Where there is clear and convincing evidence, “there are no serious or
substantial doubts as to the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the
evidence.” In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010) (citation omitted). The
paramount concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the children.
In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The mother claims there is not sufficient evidence in the record to support
termination of her parental rights. “When the juvenile court orders termination of
parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we need only find grounds to
terminate on one of the sections to affirm.” In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425, 435 (Iowa
Ct. App. 2015). We will focus on the termination of the mother’s rights under
section 232.116(1)(g).
Section 232.116(1)(g) applies when (1) a child has been adjudicated CINA,
(2) the parent’s rights “to another child who is a member of the same family” have
been terminated, (3) the parent “continues to lack the ability or willingness to
respond to services which would correct the situation,” and (4) “[t]here is clear and
convincing evidence that an additional period of rehabilitation would not correct the
situation.”
Regarding section 232.116(1)(g), the juvenile court found: 5
The circumstances which led to the termination of those rights [to D.W.] continue to exist today. Services have been offered to correct these problems. However, the parents have failed to fully participate in services or put themselves in a position to resume care of these children. The Court further finds that an additional period of time would not help in correcting the situation.
The court also stated, the mother “has not complied with the terms and conditions
of the case plan. She has been inconsistent with visitation. She has missed all of
her children’s medical appointments. She has not put herself in a position to parent
or be regularly involved in the raising of her children.” We agree with the juvenile
court’s findings.
We conclude the mother’s parental rights were properly terminated under
section 232.116(1)(g). The children were adjudicated CINA. The mother’s rights
to an older child, D.W., were terminated in 2015. Despite receiving services over
a long period of time, there were still concerns with the mother’s sobriety and her
commitment to the children. Finally, there is clear and convincing evidence the
situation would not be resolved if the mother was given additional time.
IV. Reasonable Efforts
As part of her arguments concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, the
mother claims the State did not engage in reasonable efforts to reunite her with
the children. She states she should have been given more visitation time. In the
termination order, the juvenile court found the State had engaged in reasonable
efforts.
While the mother now claims she was not given enough visitation with the
children, the record shows the mother did not fully utilize the visitation time she
was given. The mother was inconsistent in attending visitation throughout the time 6
the children were removed from her care. At the time of the termination hearing,
she had not seen the children for a month. “[I]n considering the sufficiency of
evidence to support termination, our focus is on the services provided by the state
and the response by [the parent], not on services [the parent] now claims the [Iowa
Department of Human Services] failed to provide.” In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489,
494 (Iowa 2000). We find the services provided by the State were reasonable
under the circumstances of the case.
V. Best Interests
The mother claims termination of her parental rights is not in the best
interests of the children. She states she has a strong bond with the children. In
considering a child’s best interests, we “give primary consideration to the child’s
safety, to the best placement for furthering the long-term nurturing and growth of
the child, and to the physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs of the
child.” In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Iowa Code
§ 232.116(2)). “It is well-settled law that we cannot deprive a child of permanency
after the State has proved a ground for termination under section 232.116(1) by
hoping someday a parent will learn to be a parent and be able to provide a stable
home for the child.” Id. at 41.
We find termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best
interests. As the juvenile court noted, the mother “has not put herself in a position
to parent or be regularly involved in the raising of her children.” The mother did
not attend the children’s doctor appointments, even after the State requested she
attend the appointments. In addition, her contact with the children was inconsistent
and sporadic. 7
We affirm the juvenile court’s decision terminating the mother’s parental
rights.