IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-0396 Filed April 27, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF C.M., W.M., AND P.M., Minor children,
A.K., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan Flaherty,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights to
her children. AFFIRMED.
Michael M. Lindeman of Lindeman Law, Cedar Rapids, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Kimberly A. Opatz of Linn County Advocate, Cedar Rapids, for minor
children.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Potterfield, JJ. 2
POTTERFIELD, Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights to
her children, C.M., W.M., and P.M.1 She argues termination was inappropriate
both because her children could have been safely returned to her custody at the
time of the termination hearing and because of the closeness of her relationships
with her children. We find the juvenile court correctly determined the children
could not be safely returned to the mother’s care. We also find the mother’s
bond with her children was not so strong as to preclude termination. We
therefore affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
C.M. was born in 2008 and is seven years old. W.M. was born in 2010
and is five years old. P.M. was born in 2012 and is three years old. In June
2014, their father was convicted of federal weapons charges. He is currently
serving his sentence in federal prison. Shortly after the father was sent to prison,
the mother and children were evicted from their apartment. They became
homeless and stayed either with friends or at a local motel. In October 2014, the
family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS)
due to allegations the mother was using methamphetamine while caring for the
A child abuse assessment found the children were dirty and living in a
debris-cluttered motel room. Drug paraphernalia was located in the room,
including several pipes and other items suggesting methamphetamine use. One
of the pipes was found in a diaper bag P.M. was unpacking. The mother
1 The father’s parental rights were also terminated, but he has not appealed. 3
admitted to having used the drug several days prior but stated she had been
outside of her children’s presence at the time because she was in the bathroom
with the door locked. C.M. reported he was often left alone in the family’s motel
room with his younger siblings, sometimes for long periods of time. As a result of
the founded child abuse assessment, the children were removed from the
mother’s care and placed with their paternal grandparents. C.M., W.M., and P.M.
were adjudicated to be children in need of assistance in November 2014.
The mother was given access to a number of services including parenting
education, housing assistance, and mental health and substance abuse
treatment. She did not follow through with treatment and medications
recommended by mental health professionals and also failed to successfully
complete several substance abuse programs. She initially participated in
inpatient treatment at the Heart of Iowa residential substance abuse treatment
program but was asked to leave because she continued to use
methamphetamine. She then attempted inpatient treatment at MECCA Services
but was asked to leave for possession of pain medication and for testing positive
for benzodiazepine. Finally, the mother participated in an Area Substance Abuse
Council inpatient program but was eventually asked to leave for smoking on
campus and other reasons. The mother also failed to comply consistently with
court-ordered drug testing. She went in for testing only thirty-nine out of the
eighty-eight times she was called to do so. She tested positive for
methamphetamine as recently as October 2015.
A contested termination hearing was held on November 10, 2015. After
hearing testimony from a DHS social worker and reviewing a number of 4
documents submitted by the State, the juvenile court found the mother had made
insufficient progress in addressing her substance abuse issues and was unable
to provide her children a safe and stable environment as a result. The juvenile
court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(f) (2015) as to C.M. and W.M. and section 232.116(1)(h) as to P.M.
The juvenile court explicitly considered whether termination was in the
children’s best interests. The court noted the children did have a bond with the
mother, although it had been weakened since their removal from her care more
than a year earlier. The juvenile court also found the children were very bonded
to their paternal grandparents and felt comfortable and secure in their
grandparents’ home. The paternal grandparents showed interest in adopting the
children and were open to allowing ongoing contact in some form with both
parents, which the juvenile court found would be beneficial to the children. The
court concluded termination of the mother’s and father’s parental rights was in
C.M., W.M., and P.M.’s best interests because it would allow for the children to
achieve permanency, safety, and stability through adoption.
The mother appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We conduct a de novo review of proceedings terminating parental rights.
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). An order terminating parental
rights will be upheld if there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for
termination under Iowa Code section 232.116. In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706
(Iowa 2010). Evidence is “clear and convincing” when there are no serious or
substantial doubts as to the correctness of conclusions drawn from it. Id. 5
Although we are not bound by the factual determinations of the juvenile court, we
do give weight to them, particularly regarding the credibility of witnesses. Id.
The primary consideration of our review is the best interests of the child. In re
J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006).
III. Analysis
Termination of parental rights under Iowa Code chapter 232 follows a
three-step analysis. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). First, the
court must determine if a ground for termination under section 232.116(1) has
been established. Id. Second, if a ground for termination is established, the
court must apply the framework set out in section 232.116(2) to decide if
proceeding with termination is in the best interests of the child. Id. Third, if the
statutory best-interests framework supports termination of parental rights, the
court must consider if any statutory factors set forth in section 232.116(3) should
serve to preclude termination. Id.
The mother makes two arguments on appeal. First, she argues her
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-0396 Filed April 27, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF C.M., W.M., AND P.M., Minor children,
A.K., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan Flaherty,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights to
her children. AFFIRMED.
Michael M. Lindeman of Lindeman Law, Cedar Rapids, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Kimberly A. Opatz of Linn County Advocate, Cedar Rapids, for minor
children.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Potterfield, JJ. 2
POTTERFIELD, Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights to
her children, C.M., W.M., and P.M.1 She argues termination was inappropriate
both because her children could have been safely returned to her custody at the
time of the termination hearing and because of the closeness of her relationships
with her children. We find the juvenile court correctly determined the children
could not be safely returned to the mother’s care. We also find the mother’s
bond with her children was not so strong as to preclude termination. We
therefore affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
C.M. was born in 2008 and is seven years old. W.M. was born in 2010
and is five years old. P.M. was born in 2012 and is three years old. In June
2014, their father was convicted of federal weapons charges. He is currently
serving his sentence in federal prison. Shortly after the father was sent to prison,
the mother and children were evicted from their apartment. They became
homeless and stayed either with friends or at a local motel. In October 2014, the
family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS)
due to allegations the mother was using methamphetamine while caring for the
A child abuse assessment found the children were dirty and living in a
debris-cluttered motel room. Drug paraphernalia was located in the room,
including several pipes and other items suggesting methamphetamine use. One
of the pipes was found in a diaper bag P.M. was unpacking. The mother
1 The father’s parental rights were also terminated, but he has not appealed. 3
admitted to having used the drug several days prior but stated she had been
outside of her children’s presence at the time because she was in the bathroom
with the door locked. C.M. reported he was often left alone in the family’s motel
room with his younger siblings, sometimes for long periods of time. As a result of
the founded child abuse assessment, the children were removed from the
mother’s care and placed with their paternal grandparents. C.M., W.M., and P.M.
were adjudicated to be children in need of assistance in November 2014.
The mother was given access to a number of services including parenting
education, housing assistance, and mental health and substance abuse
treatment. She did not follow through with treatment and medications
recommended by mental health professionals and also failed to successfully
complete several substance abuse programs. She initially participated in
inpatient treatment at the Heart of Iowa residential substance abuse treatment
program but was asked to leave because she continued to use
methamphetamine. She then attempted inpatient treatment at MECCA Services
but was asked to leave for possession of pain medication and for testing positive
for benzodiazepine. Finally, the mother participated in an Area Substance Abuse
Council inpatient program but was eventually asked to leave for smoking on
campus and other reasons. The mother also failed to comply consistently with
court-ordered drug testing. She went in for testing only thirty-nine out of the
eighty-eight times she was called to do so. She tested positive for
methamphetamine as recently as October 2015.
A contested termination hearing was held on November 10, 2015. After
hearing testimony from a DHS social worker and reviewing a number of 4
documents submitted by the State, the juvenile court found the mother had made
insufficient progress in addressing her substance abuse issues and was unable
to provide her children a safe and stable environment as a result. The juvenile
court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.116(1)(f) (2015) as to C.M. and W.M. and section 232.116(1)(h) as to P.M.
The juvenile court explicitly considered whether termination was in the
children’s best interests. The court noted the children did have a bond with the
mother, although it had been weakened since their removal from her care more
than a year earlier. The juvenile court also found the children were very bonded
to their paternal grandparents and felt comfortable and secure in their
grandparents’ home. The paternal grandparents showed interest in adopting the
children and were open to allowing ongoing contact in some form with both
parents, which the juvenile court found would be beneficial to the children. The
court concluded termination of the mother’s and father’s parental rights was in
C.M., W.M., and P.M.’s best interests because it would allow for the children to
achieve permanency, safety, and stability through adoption.
The mother appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We conduct a de novo review of proceedings terminating parental rights.
In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). An order terminating parental
rights will be upheld if there is clear and convincing evidence of grounds for
termination under Iowa Code section 232.116. In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706
(Iowa 2010). Evidence is “clear and convincing” when there are no serious or
substantial doubts as to the correctness of conclusions drawn from it. Id. 5
Although we are not bound by the factual determinations of the juvenile court, we
do give weight to them, particularly regarding the credibility of witnesses. Id.
The primary consideration of our review is the best interests of the child. In re
J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006).
III. Analysis
Termination of parental rights under Iowa Code chapter 232 follows a
three-step analysis. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). First, the
court must determine if a ground for termination under section 232.116(1) has
been established. Id. Second, if a ground for termination is established, the
court must apply the framework set out in section 232.116(2) to decide if
proceeding with termination is in the best interests of the child. Id. Third, if the
statutory best-interests framework supports termination of parental rights, the
court must consider if any statutory factors set forth in section 232.116(3) should
serve to preclude termination. Id.
The mother makes two arguments on appeal. First, she argues her
children could have been safely returned to her care and as a result, the State
failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the final element of the ground
for termination as to each of her children. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f)(4),
(h)(4). Second, she argues the juvenile court’s decision to terminate her parental
rights was improper because a statutory factor weighing against termination was
present. See Id. § 232.116(3)(c) (“The court need not terminate the relationship
between the parent and child if the court finds . . . [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.”). 6
Upon our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court’s conclusion
that C.M., W.M., and P.M. could not be safely returned to the mother’s care at
the time of the termination hearing. The mother’s repeated failures in inpatient
substance abuse treatment programs and recent positive drug tests show that
she has not resolved the substance abuse issues that led to the removal of her
children from her care. She has also failed to address adequately her mental
health needs. The issues that necessitated her children’s removal continue to
exist, and as a result, C.M., W.M., and P.M. could not be safely returned to her
care on November 10, 2015.
We also agree with the juvenile court’s conclusion that termination was
appropriate in spite of the fact the children were bonded to the mother. The
language of 232.116(3) is permissive, so a juvenile court may choose to forego
termination if any of the listed circumstances are satisfied, but the court is not
obligated to do so. See In re D.S., 806 N.W.2d 458, 474–75 (Iowa Ct. App.
2011). Here, although it is true the children were bonded with their mother, we
find they were also bonded with their paternal grandparents. The paternal
grandparents wished to adopt the children and give them stability their mother
could not. Termination is in C.M., W.M. and P.M.’s best interests because it will
best serve their physical, mental, and emotional needs and further their long-term
nurturing and growth.
AFFIRMED.