IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1644 Filed November 26, 2014
IN THE INTEREST OF B.G., B.G., and B.G., Minor Children,
A.W., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Phillip J. Tabor,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three children.
AFFIRMED.
Les M. Blair III of Blair and Fitzsimmons, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Janet L. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney
General, Mike Wolf, County Attorney, and Cheryl Newport, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee.
Neill Kroeger, LeClaire, for father
Brian P. Donnelly of Mayer, Lonergan & Rolfes, Clinton, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ. Tabor, J.,
takes no part. 2
BOWER, J.
A mother, A.W., appeals the termination of her parental rights to three
children.1 The mother claims the State has failed to carry its burden of proving
by clear and convincing evidence her parental rights should be terminated. We
find the State carried its burden and affirm the juvenile court’s order.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The children, B.G., B.G., and B.G., were born in 2007, 2008, and 2011,
respectively. The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) first became
involved with the children due to a founded child abuse assessment filed in
January 2012 against the mother and father for lack of supervision and denial of
critical care. The assessment stemmed from a domestic disturbance between
the children’s parents, witnessed by one of the children, and the mother’s
continued problems with alcohol. On two occasions in 2012 the mother was
arrested and charged with operating while intoxicated (OWI). The children were
not with her at the time of the arrests. After the second OWI, the DHS filed a
child in need of assistance (CINA) petition for all three children. In March 2013,
the children were determined to be CINA but were allowed to remain in the
mother’s custody under the supervision of the DHS. Shortly after the hearing,
the mother was arrested and charged with a third OWI. As a result, she was
placed at the Hightower Place Transitional Housing’s program for substance
abuse treatment. The children were allowed to live with their mother at
Hightower.
1 The father’s parental rights were also terminated. He does not appeal. 3
In October 2013, the mother successfully completed the Hightower Place
program and moved to New Directions transitional housing. In November 2013,
her residency at New Directions was terminated due to a domestic incident
between her and the children’s father. After the incident she admitted to several
relapses and agreed to the removal of her children to foster care for their
protection. Also in November, the children’s father was arrested for
manufacturing controlled substances and was eventually sent to prison for a term
not to exceed ten years.
A review hearing was held in February 2014, and the DHS reported a lack
of progress by the mother. The court scheduled a permanency hearing for all
three children, which was subsequently continued to provide the mother with
more time to obtain treatment. In August, the State petitioned for the termination
of the parents parental rights, and the termination hearing was held on
September 16.
In its termination order, the court noted the mother’s lack of improvement
and effort. From January through May 2014, the mother attended nine of fifty-
nine scheduled substance abuse and mental health outpatient sessions. The
mother did spend one month in a detoxification program but after release from
the program failed to submit to all five requests for random drug testing. Further,
the mother has cancelled or has been absent from seventeen of twenty-three
visitations with her children from May through August 2014 even though the DHS
provided transportation for her. The mother cited various medical reasons for the
absences, though she was unable to provide proof of visits to a doctor. The DHS 4
noted the missed visitations were detrimental to the children. The DHS social
worker assigned to the case recommended termination of the mother’s parental
rights. The children’s guardian ad litem also recommended termination of the
mother’s parental rights. The juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence
to terminate the mother’s parental rights to the two older children pursuant to
Iowa Code sections 232.116 (1)(d), (i), and (l) (2013), and her parental rights to
the youngest child pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116 (1)(d), (h), (i), and (l)
(2013).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Our review of termination decisions is de novo. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33,
40 (Iowa 2010). We give weight to the juvenile court’s findings, especially
assessing witness credibility, although we are not bound by them. In re D.W.,
791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). An order terminating parental rights will be
upheld if there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination under
section 232.116. Id. Evidence is “clear and convincing” when there are no
serious or substantial doubts as to the correctness of the conclusions of law
drawn from the evidence. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
Iowa Code chapter 232, concerning the termination of parental rights,
follows a three-step analysis. P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 39. The court must first
determine whether a ground for termination under section 232.116(1) has been
established. Id. If a ground for termination has been established, the court must
apply the best-interest framework set out in section 232.116(2) to decide if the 5
grounds for termination should result in termination of parental rights. Id. Finally,
if the statutory best-interest framework supports termination of parental rights,
the court must consider if any of the statutory exceptions set out in section
232.116(3) weigh against the termination of parental rights. Id.
A. Grounds for Termination
When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one
statutory ground, we may affirm the order on any ground we find supported by
clear and convincing evidence. D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707. On appeal, the
mother states the trial court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence
existed to terminate her parental rights. She believes her noncompliance with
the case plan created by the DHS cannot serve as a basis for termination. She
claims she complied with the requirements of the case plan she was able to,
taking into consideration her limited finances, transportation, and health
concerns. The mother has failed to cite a specific ground, pursuant to section
232.11, to support her claim. After reviewing the record de novo, we conclude
grounds for termination exist under sections 232.116(1) (i), and (l). For the
purposes of this appeal, we will limit our analysis solely to section 232.116(1)(l).
Under section 232.116(1)(l), termination may be ordered if the child has
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1644 Filed November 26, 2014
IN THE INTEREST OF B.G., B.G., and B.G., Minor Children,
A.W., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Phillip J. Tabor,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three children.
AFFIRMED.
Les M. Blair III of Blair and Fitzsimmons, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Janet L. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney
General, Mike Wolf, County Attorney, and Cheryl Newport, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee.
Neill Kroeger, LeClaire, for father
Brian P. Donnelly of Mayer, Lonergan & Rolfes, Clinton, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ. Tabor, J.,
takes no part. 2
BOWER, J.
A mother, A.W., appeals the termination of her parental rights to three
children.1 The mother claims the State has failed to carry its burden of proving
by clear and convincing evidence her parental rights should be terminated. We
find the State carried its burden and affirm the juvenile court’s order.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The children, B.G., B.G., and B.G., were born in 2007, 2008, and 2011,
respectively. The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) first became
involved with the children due to a founded child abuse assessment filed in
January 2012 against the mother and father for lack of supervision and denial of
critical care. The assessment stemmed from a domestic disturbance between
the children’s parents, witnessed by one of the children, and the mother’s
continued problems with alcohol. On two occasions in 2012 the mother was
arrested and charged with operating while intoxicated (OWI). The children were
not with her at the time of the arrests. After the second OWI, the DHS filed a
child in need of assistance (CINA) petition for all three children. In March 2013,
the children were determined to be CINA but were allowed to remain in the
mother’s custody under the supervision of the DHS. Shortly after the hearing,
the mother was arrested and charged with a third OWI. As a result, she was
placed at the Hightower Place Transitional Housing’s program for substance
abuse treatment. The children were allowed to live with their mother at
Hightower.
1 The father’s parental rights were also terminated. He does not appeal. 3
In October 2013, the mother successfully completed the Hightower Place
program and moved to New Directions transitional housing. In November 2013,
her residency at New Directions was terminated due to a domestic incident
between her and the children’s father. After the incident she admitted to several
relapses and agreed to the removal of her children to foster care for their
protection. Also in November, the children’s father was arrested for
manufacturing controlled substances and was eventually sent to prison for a term
not to exceed ten years.
A review hearing was held in February 2014, and the DHS reported a lack
of progress by the mother. The court scheduled a permanency hearing for all
three children, which was subsequently continued to provide the mother with
more time to obtain treatment. In August, the State petitioned for the termination
of the parents parental rights, and the termination hearing was held on
September 16.
In its termination order, the court noted the mother’s lack of improvement
and effort. From January through May 2014, the mother attended nine of fifty-
nine scheduled substance abuse and mental health outpatient sessions. The
mother did spend one month in a detoxification program but after release from
the program failed to submit to all five requests for random drug testing. Further,
the mother has cancelled or has been absent from seventeen of twenty-three
visitations with her children from May through August 2014 even though the DHS
provided transportation for her. The mother cited various medical reasons for the
absences, though she was unable to provide proof of visits to a doctor. The DHS 4
noted the missed visitations were detrimental to the children. The DHS social
worker assigned to the case recommended termination of the mother’s parental
rights. The children’s guardian ad litem also recommended termination of the
mother’s parental rights. The juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence
to terminate the mother’s parental rights to the two older children pursuant to
Iowa Code sections 232.116 (1)(d), (i), and (l) (2013), and her parental rights to
the youngest child pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116 (1)(d), (h), (i), and (l)
(2013).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Our review of termination decisions is de novo. In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33,
40 (Iowa 2010). We give weight to the juvenile court’s findings, especially
assessing witness credibility, although we are not bound by them. In re D.W.,
791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). An order terminating parental rights will be
upheld if there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination under
section 232.116. Id. Evidence is “clear and convincing” when there are no
serious or substantial doubts as to the correctness of the conclusions of law
drawn from the evidence. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
Iowa Code chapter 232, concerning the termination of parental rights,
follows a three-step analysis. P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 39. The court must first
determine whether a ground for termination under section 232.116(1) has been
established. Id. If a ground for termination has been established, the court must
apply the best-interest framework set out in section 232.116(2) to decide if the 5
grounds for termination should result in termination of parental rights. Id. Finally,
if the statutory best-interest framework supports termination of parental rights,
the court must consider if any of the statutory exceptions set out in section
232.116(3) weigh against the termination of parental rights. Id.
A. Grounds for Termination
When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one
statutory ground, we may affirm the order on any ground we find supported by
clear and convincing evidence. D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707. On appeal, the
mother states the trial court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence
existed to terminate her parental rights. She believes her noncompliance with
the case plan created by the DHS cannot serve as a basis for termination. She
claims she complied with the requirements of the case plan she was able to,
taking into consideration her limited finances, transportation, and health
concerns. The mother has failed to cite a specific ground, pursuant to section
232.11, to support her claim. After reviewing the record de novo, we conclude
grounds for termination exist under sections 232.116(1) (i), and (l). For the
purposes of this appeal, we will limit our analysis solely to section 232.116(1)(l).
Under section 232.116(1)(l), termination may be ordered if the child has
been adjudicated a CINA, “[t]he parent has a severe substance-related disorder
and presents a danger to self or others as evidenced by prior acts,” and “[t]here
is clear and convincing evidence “the [mother]’s prognosis indicates that the child
will not be able to be returned to the custody of the [mother] within a reasonable
period of time considering the child’s age and need for a permanent home.” Iowa 6
Code § 232.116(1)(l)(1)–(3). After the children were ruled CINA because of the
mother’s substance abuse and neglect, the DHS began offering services to
address these issues. The record shows the DHS provided mental health and
substance abuse counseling and treatment to the mother. The mother
substantially failed to participate in these services. The mother attended only a
small amount of the scheduled substance abuse counseling sessions. She failed
to complete all five random drug tests. The mother was given additional time to
comply with services and failed to do so. “[C]hildren should not be forced to wait
for their parent to grow up.” In re M.Z., 481 N.W.2d 532, 536 (Iowa Ct. App.
1991). “Where the parent has been unable to rise above the addiction and
experience sustained sobriety in a noncustodial setting, and establish the
essential support system to maintain sobriety, there is little hope of success in
parenting.” In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998). We find the
State has carried its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the
mother’s parental rights should be terminated pursuant to section 232.116(1)(l).
B. Best Interests of the Child.
Even if a statutory ground for termination is met, a decision to terminate
must still be in the best interests of a child after a review of section 232.116(2).
P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 37. In determining the best interests of the child, 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 conditions and needs of the child.” See Iowa Code § 232.116(2). For 7
the reasons listed above, we find it is in the best interests of the children to
terminate the mother’s parental rights.
IV. CONCLUSION
There is clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination exist
under section 232.116(1)(l), termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the
children’s best interests pursuant to section 232.116(2), and no consequential
factor weighing against termination in section 232.116(3) requires a different
result. Accordingly, we affirm termination of the mother’s parental rights.