In the Interest of D.C.M., Minor Child

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: March 29, 2023
• Docket: 22-2071
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-2071 Filed March 29, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF D.C.M., Minor Child,

I.C., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte,

District Associate Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of parental rights to her one-year-old son.

AFFIRMED.

Teresa M. Pope of Pope Law, PLLC, Des Moines, for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and MacKenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Brooke J. Thompson of Miller, Zimmerman & Evans, PLC, Des Moines,

attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ. 2

TABOR, Presiding Judge.

A mother, Imani, asks for more time to reunify with her one-year-old son.

She also argues that termination of her parental rights was not in D.C.M.’s best

interests. Because Imani has not shown the kind of progress that would make

reunification possible in six months, delaying permanency is not a viable option.

Given her persistent mental-health, substance-abuse, and housing issues,

termination is in the child’s best interests.1

Imani acknowledged at the termination hearing that she could not yet

provide a safe home for her son. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h) (2022). Her only

request was for more time to reunify. See Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(b). By the date

of that hearing, D.C.M. had been out of her custody for about fourteen months.

And the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services had been involved with

the family since his birth in March 2021.

Both Imani and D.C.M. have faced tough challenges. Imani was nineteen

and homeless when she found out she was pregnant. She reported many

complications with the pregnancy, including hyperthyroidism, hypertension,

preeclampsia, a blood clot in the placenta, and seizures. And D.C.M. was born

two months premature and tested positive for THC, the active ingredient in

marijuana.2 He has health conditions that require appointments with specialists in

1 We review orders terminating parental rights de novo. In re W.T., 967 N.W.2d 315, 322 (Iowa 2021). Under that standard of review, the juvenile court’s fact-findings are not binding on us, but we give them careful consideration. Id. 2 Imani admitted using marijuana often during her pregnancy. Child protective

services returned a founded child abuse report based on D.C.M.’s positive test. 3

endocrinology, cardiology, ophthalmology, and genetics. He is also behind in his

developmental milestones.

The department removed D.C.M. from Imani’s custody in September 2021

after a welfare check revealed unsanitary conditions in their home and Imani in the

throes of a mental-health crisis. She had not taken D.C.M. to his doctors’

appointments, and the child’s weight fell below the first percentile on the growth

chart, even adjusted for his premature birth. In adjudicating D.C.M. as a child in

need of assistance, the court directed Imani to undergo substance-abuse and

mental-health evaluations and treatment.

A year passed, and D.C.M. remained in foster care. Yet Imani did not

complete a substance-abuse evaluation, continued to use marijuana, and did not

effectively address her extensive mental-health needs. She lacked stable housing

and employment. And she was inconsistent in attending both visits with D.C.M.

and his medical appointments. When she did show up for her son, their

interactions were positive. But those interactions were too few. Imani missed

almost all scheduled visits with D.C.M. in the fall of 2022, prompting the service

provider to note that “his mother is a stranger to him.”

In its December 2022 termination order, the juvenile court highlighted

Imani’s “poignant testimony” and her “evident” love for her son. But the court was

not optimistic about Imani’s prospects for being a safe parent any time soon:

Imani is not able to have [D.C.M.] placed in her care today. Nor is she likely to be ready to have custody of [D.C.M.] within six months. Despite the services and support that has been offered to Imani, she has yet to address her substance use. She has continued to use, and has not yet obtained even a substance abuse evaluation. Her mental health continues to negatively impact her ability to engage in services, obtain stability, and participate consistently in family 4

interactions. Given her progress thus far, a six-month extension is not appropriate.

Like the juvenile court, we find little support in the record for postponing

permanency. Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b) sets forth the option of continuing

placement after a permanency hearing if the court can “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.” That statute requires

the court to make an educated prediction based on a parent’s progress with

services. See In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85, 92 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005). Imani has

not shown sufficient headway to merit more time.

Not only must Imani show that the barriers to placing D.C.M. back in her

custody will not exist in six months, but we also must consider whether that delay

serves the child’s best interests better than termination. See W.T., 967 N.W.2d

at 323. The best-interests test lies in Iowa Code Section 232.116(2). Under that

statute, we consider the child’s safety; the best placement for furthering his long-

term nurturing and growth; and his physical, mental, and emotional condition and

needs. Id. Here, we focus on D.C.M.’s vulnerable medical condition. Because

Imani has not addressed her own mental-health and substance-abuse issues, she

is unable to manage the medical and developmental challenges faced by her

young son. Depriving D.C.M. of a stable environment while Imani struggles to find

solid footing is not in his best interests. So we affirm the termination order.