In the Interest of B.T., Minor Child, N.T., Mother
This text of In the Interest of B.T., Minor Child, N.T., Mother (In the Interest of B.T., Minor Child, N.T., Mother) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0773 Filed September 13, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF B.T., Minor Child,
N.T., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda D. Belcher,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
Bridget M. Bott of Bott Law Office, P.L.L.C., West Des Moines, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ana Dixit, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Erin E. Mayfield of the Youth Law Center, Des Moines, for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ. 2
MULLINS, Judge.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental
rights to her child, B.T., born in 2015.1 She argues the State failed to prove the
statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and the
juvenile court erred in determining termination was in B.T.’s best interest.
The family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS) in January 2015, shortly after B.T. was born with a congenital
heart defect and only one kidney. The parents were homeless, with an ongoing
history of homelessness, and a history of domestic violence. The mother had a
history of not being able to meet her own medical needs throughout her
pregnancy and was being treated for scabies. While the parents were staying at
the hospital with B.T., they and B.T. were found to have lice and were treated.
In May 2017, the juvenile court terminated the mother's parental rights
pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2016). We review termination-of-
parental-rights proceedings de novo. In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 219 (Iowa
2016). “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. (quoting In
re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014)). Our primary consideration is the
best interests of the child. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006).
Under section 232.116(1)(h), the court may terminate parental rights if the
court finds the State has proved by clear and convincing evidence the child (1) is
three years of age or younger; (2) has been adjudicated a child in need of
assistance (CINA); (3) has been removed from the physical custody of the parent
1 The father’s rights were also terminated. He did not appeal. 3
for at least six of the last twelve months, or the last six consecutive months and
any trial period at home has been less than thirty days; and (4) cannot be
returned to the parent’s custody at the time of the termination hearing.
The mother does not dispute the State proved the first three elements
required under section 232.116(1)(h): at the time of the termination hearing, the
child was under the age of three, had been adjudicated CINA in March 2015, and
had been removed from the mother’s physical custody since March 2015 without
any trial periods at home. The mother argues, however, the State failed to prove
the fourth element: the child could not be returned to her custody at the time of
the termination hearing. Following the termination hearing in April 2017, the
juvenile court found:
The child has extensive medical needs and despite the mother having completed the necessary training to care for the child, the mother has not been able to demonstrate an ability to do so if the child were returned to her home today. The mother is not aware of child’s specific medical needs or necessary feeding. Further, the mother has not adequately addressed her mental health or domestic violence issues to prevent any further adjudicatory harm if the child were to be returned today.
Although the mother reported she has been compliant with taking her
medication to treat her borderline personality disorder diagnosis, she admitted at
trial that during the nearly two-year duration of DHS involvement she had not
been going to mental-health therapy to address her borderline personality
disorder as recommended by DHS, but she claimed to have an upcoming
appointment. She admitted she has a significant history of being the victim of
domestic violence but at the time of trial had been unable to arrange for any help
to address how to break a long cycle of repeated violent relationships. The 4
mother acknowledged B.T. requires extra assistance with eating but was not
aware of the child’s current feeding level, and the mother admitted she would
need additional training before being able to feed B.T. The mother also testified
she was not “up to date on [B.T.’s] medical needs at this time.”
In this appeal, the mother argues she has made significant progress in
many areas. We agree, and acknowledge she has made efforts and progress
during the two years since B.T.’s removal. Despite her efforts and progress, after
our de novo review, we agree with the district court the evidence is clear and
convincing that B.T. could not be returned to the mother’s care at the time of the
termination hearing.
We next consider whether “termination of parental rights would be in the
best interest of the child under section 232.116(2).” M.W., 876 N.W.2d at 224.
The mother has had difficulties protecting herself from domestic violence and
meeting her own physical and mental-health needs. Her parental rights to two
other children were previously terminated in another state. B.T. has special
health needs, the child has been in foster care nearly her entire life, and after two
years the mother has not progressed to the point of unsupervised visitation.
We must now view this case with a sense of urgency. See In re C.B., 611
N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 2000); see also In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 777 (Iowa
2012) (“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.” (quoting In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 41 (Iowa 2010))). “[A]t
some point, the rights and needs of the child[] rise above the rights and needs of 5
the parent.” In re C.S., 776 N.W.2d 297, 300 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009). This child
needs and deserves permanency and stability. See In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703,
709 (Iowa 2010) (noting a mother’s “inability to anticipate and provide for her
son’s long-term welfare is a rocky foundation in which a child cannot find
permanency”); In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Iowa 1997) (“It is simply not in
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Interest of B.T., Minor Child, N.T., Mother, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-bt-minor-child-nt-mother-iowactapp-2017.